Reclaim Democracy!

On Sales Tax, Amazon Wins Even When it Loses

by

Jeff Bezos, with a knowing look

By Jacob Weisberg
First published in Slate

Amazon has built its empire on the legitimate advantages it has over retail shopping: an endless range of products at steep discount, personalized recommendations, and stunningly good customer service. It has also benefited from one enormously unfair advantage over its bricks-and-mortar competitors: It doesn’t have to charge sales tax. Depending on where you live in the United States, this can save you nearly 10 percent on purchases—making it foolish not to buy online when you have the choice.

Twenty years after Amazon was founded, Congress is finally addressing this loophole with a bill that would allow states to require e-tailers to collect tax. What’s interesting about this is not the substantive debate around the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, which is expected to pass the Senate next week. There really isn’t any: Even Amazon concedes in principle that the playing field ought to be leveled. What’s interesting is what the delay tells us about a political system so compromised and sclerotic that it can’t correct even the most straightforward economic unfairness in a timely fashion.

Cyberbusinesses have been able to avoid collecting sales tax based on state laws dating from the era when shopping locally was the norm. Companies without a “physical presence” in a state didn’t have to charge tax if they shipped goods from elsewhere. Instead, it was up to customers to pay equivalent “use taxes” on their purchases. In practice, few customers have ever been scrupulous enough to do so, giving the lie to the commonplace that the American tax system, unlike that of Greece, works on the basis of “voluntary compliance.” In the case of sales taxes, states have no mechanism to track dodgers, so no one pays.

As its business expanded, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos treated this anomaly as an inherited right and deployed the classic techniques of rent-seeking to protect his advantage. He spent millions of dollars per year on lobbyists, deployed an army of lawyers, and cultivated political allies with large campaign contributions. Diffuse and vulnerable, the mom-and-pop shops disrupted by Amazon lacked the capacity to make their case effectively. Nor was there any customer constituency for tax collection, even though the same consumers paid indirectly through diminished public services.

At the state level, Amazon became a litigious bully, an instance of the modern corporation powerful enough to dictate terms to impoverished sovereigns. When challenged over the collection of taxes, it warned that it could take thousands of jobs elsewhere. As California teetered near bankruptcy a few years ago, Amazon cut ties with local affiliates and threatened to fund a public referendum to overturn the legislature’s decision to make it pay tax. Its strategy devolved into simply delaying the inevitable for as long as possible. When a state looked likely to win in court, Amazon would negotiate and agree to collect taxes, provided that it didn’t have to start for a few more years.

In this cynical game, Amazon has been able to count on the connivance of congressional Republicans who stand for the proposition that representation without taxation is liberty. A principled conservative believes that taxes should be low, consistent, and fair. An American Republican, by contrast, acts out of the belief that both taxation and the effective collection of revenues are government abuses. This ideology is codified in the anti-tax pledge most of the GOP has signed for the libertarian commissar Grover Norquist, whose organization Americans for Tax Reform leads the opposition to taxing e-purchases.

This anti-tax ideology grabs for any argument at hand. In the old days, it was that taxing e-commerce would kill the just-aborning Golden Goose of the Internet. More paranoid elements on the right suggest that allowing states to collect sales taxes was a step on the road to a national value-added tax. Others assert that compliance counts as too much of a burden on small business, which could be victimized by endless state-level tax audits. In fact, proposed legislation has always envisioned an exception for merchants who sell less than $1 million a year in goods. In the past, Amazon’s lobbyists have worked to make the proposed threshold lower, in order to give validity to the argument that compliance would be a burden.

What has now changed? Essentially, Amazon has become so dominant that it no longer cares to fight, leaving its worn-out briefs to eBay and Overstock.com. It has played out the clock longer than it dared hope and would now like to be able to build warehouses everywhere without doing state-by-state battle over its “physical presence.” In other words, this is not a case of Congress finally choosing to act. It’s a case of the owners finally giving it permission to do so.

A different version of this piece appears in the Financial Times.

For more, see the American Independent Business Alliance’s comprehensive resource on state sales tax and internet exemption reform.

image courtesy jurvetson

Corporate Welfare Grows to $154 Billion even in Midst of Major Government Cuts

by

The Embodiment of Corporate Welfare Himself - Mr. Moneybags

Editor’s Note: Even as the federal government executes major cutbacks, it’s giving huge subsidies in the form of tax breaks to industry, a fact legislators rarely acknowledge. The Boston Globe recently published a thorough and eye-popping report detailing the nature and extent of these breaks. We think it’s a must-read. 

By Pete Marovich
First published in the Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — Lobbying for special tax treatment produced a spectacular return for Whirlpool Corp., courtesy of Congress and those who pay the bills, the American taxpayers.

By investing just $1.8 million over two years in payments for Washington lobbyists, Whirlpool secured the renewal of lucrative energy tax credits for making high-efficiency appliances that it estimates will be worth a combined $120 million for 2012 and 2013. Such breaks have helped the company keep its total tax expenses below zero in recent years.

The return on that lobbying investment: about 6,700 percent.

These are the sort of returns that have attracted growing swarms of corporate tax lobbyists to the Capitol over the last decade — the sorts of payoffs typically reserved for gamblers and gold miners. Even as Congress says it is digging for every penny of savings, lobbyists are anything but sequestered; they are ratcheting up their efforts to protect and even increase their clients’ tax breaks.

‘It’s not about tax policy, it’s about benefiting the political class and the well-connected and the well-heeled in this country,’ Said Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

The Senate approved tax benefits for Whirlpool and a host of other corporations early on New Year’s Day, a couple of hours after the ball dropped over Times Square and champagne corks began popping. A smorgasbord of 43 business and energy tax breaks, collectively worth $67 billion this year, was packed into the emergency tax legislation that avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff.’’

In the days that followed, the tax handouts for business were barely mentioned as President Obama and members of Congress hailed the broader effects of the dramatic legislation, which prevented income tax increases on the middle class and raised top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

Yet the generous breaks awarded to narrow sectors of the American business community are just as symptomatic of Washington dysfunction as the serial budget crises that have gripped the capital since 2011. Leaders of both parties have repeatedly declared their intention to make the corporate income tax code fairer by lowering rates and ending special breaks, while intense lobbying, ideological divides, and unending political fights on Capitol Hill block most progress.

The result: sweeping bipartisan tax reform of the sort negotiated in 1986 by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip’’ O’Neill Jr. is rated a long shot once again this year. In fact, the most visible signs of cross-party cooperation on corporate taxes are among regional groups of lawmakers who team up, out of parochial interest, to maintain special treatment for businesses in their home states.

In the absence of meaningful change, corporations like Whirlpool continue to pursue the exponential returns available from tax lobbying. The number of companies disclosing lobbying activity on tax issues rose 56 percent to 1,868 in 2012, up from 1,200 in 1998, according to data collected by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

According to Biti Codes, Whirlpool had plenty of company on New Year’s, including multinational corporations with offshore investment earnings, Hollywood companies that shoot films in the United States, railroads that invest in track maintenance, sellers of energy produced by windmills and solar panels, and producers of electric motorcycles.

Their special treatment is a fraction of a broader constellation of what the federal Joint Committee on Taxation estimates will be $154 billion in special corporate tax breaks in 2013, contained in 135 individual provisions of the tax code.

Watchdogs and tax analysts denounce these favors as a hidden form of spending that amounts to corporate welfare. In essence, these “tax expenditures’’ are no different than mailing subsidy checks directly to companies to pad their bottom lines.

Congress reduced the number of tax breaks in 1986 as part of the broader reform package. The breaks steadily crept back, particularly in the last decade, as lawmakers heeded requests from advocacy groups and business lobbyists to lower taxes as a way of subsidizing particular industries.

“There’s a justification and rationale for virtually every one of these. They have their intellectual advocates, and they have their political advocates, and that’s how they get in the law,’’ said Lawrence F. O’Brien III, an influential lobbyist and a top campaign fund-raiser for Senate Democrats who represents financial industry clients and other interests.

Whirlpool has a powerful Michigan delegation behind it, including key committee chairmen of tax-writing and energy committees in the House. In response to questions from the Globe, the company said its special tax breaks led it to save “hundreds’’ of American jobs from the effects of the recession.

“Energy tax credits required that Whirlpool Corporation make significant investments in tooling and manufacturing to build highly energy-efficient products,’’ Jeff Noel, Whirlpool’s corporate vice president of communication, said in an e-mail. “If you look at our 101-year history, we have definitely paid our fair share of US federal income taxes.’’

But its federal income taxes have been minimal in recent years, thanks in large part to tax credits and deferrals, according to public filings. Its total income taxes — including foreign, federal, and state — were negative-$436 million in 2011, negative-$64 million in 2010, and negative-$61 million in 2009. It carries forward federal credits as “deferred tax assets’’ that it can use to lower future tax bills.

The renewed tax breaks granted by Congress in January, which were retroactive to the beginning of 2012, will not be recorded until Whirlpool pays its 2013 taxes. Because of the absence of that tax credit, and because of greater earnings and changes in foreign taxes, the company estimated its total 2012 tax expenses will be $133 million.

Whirlpool did not provide a specific number of jobs retained. The benefits were not sufficient to protect Whirlpool’s employees at a refrigerator manufacturing plant in Arkansas. Last summer, the company laid off more than 800 hourly workers, closed the factory, and moved manufacturing of those refrigerators to Mexico. It was part of an overall reduction of 5,000 in its workforce announced in 2011 in North America and Europe.

Congress “made a big mistake,’’ by authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits for Whirlpool based on arguments that the company would retain domestic jobs, said Howard Carruth, a machine maintenance worker and union official who began work at the plant in 1969 and lost his job last year when the plant closed.

“They really hurt the economy around here,’’ he said. “I blame the corporate greed.’’

The closing also transformed Carruth from loyal to embittered customer: “We bought Whirlpool for our own house, for family and friends. If one of those goes out in my house right now, it will not be replaced by Whirlpool.’’

Many companies would probably pay much higher taxes — including Whirlpool — if Congress eliminated special breaks and lowered the income tax rate to 25 percent from the current 35 percent.

An extra benefit of winning government subsidies through the tax code: Recipients remain immune from spending cuts like the automatic “sequester’’ imposed on March 1.

Called the “tax extenders,’’ 43 credits, deferrals, and exceptions for general business and energy firms were lumped into the fiscal cliff legislation. The returns on lobbying investments companies realized when the Senate passed its fiscal cliff bill helps explain why Washington tax lobbyists remain in demand:

  • Multinational companies and banks, including General Electric, Citigroup, and Ford Motor Co., with investment earnings from overseas accounts won tax breaks collectively worth $11 billion — a return on their two-year lobbying investment of at least 8,200 percent, according to a Globe analysis of lobbying reports.
  • Hollywood production companies received a $430 million tax benefit for filming within the United States. As a result, companies like Walt Disney Co., Viacom, Sony, and Time Warner — with the help of the Motion Picture Association of America, chaired by former Connecticut senator Christopher J. Dodd — realized a return on their lobbying investment of about 860 percent.
  • Railroads lobbied on a broad array of issues, a portion of which yielded $331 million for two years’ worth of track maintenance tax credits. Return on investment: at least 260 percent.
  • Even at the low end of the economic scale the returns can be large. Two West Coast companies that manufacture electric motorcycles — Brammo Inc. of Oregon, and Zero Motorcycle Inc. of California — reported combined lobbying expenditures of $200,000 in 2011 and 2012. They won tax subsidies payable to the consumers who buy their products worth an estimated $7 million. The electric motorcycle market stands to receive a return on that investment of up to 3,500 percent.

Like each of the industries that won special treatment in the Jan. 1 “extenders’’ corporate tax measure, the electric motorcycle lobby argued that tax breaks would protect or create jobs. Electric motorcycle manufacturers only employ hundreds of workers now, said Jay Friedland, Zero Motorcycles vice president, but could employ thousands in the future.

“There are definitely provisions in the extenders that people scratch their heads at, but if your goal is to build a replacement for the pure oil economy, this is the kind of industry you want to make an investment on,’’ he said.

Measuring the rewards for lobbying on individual tax provisions is by nature imprecise, especially for large corporations that weigh in on dozens of issues. Companies file blanket disclosure reports that do not break down their lobbying expenditures by individual issue.

Publicly traded companies like Whirlpool with narrower lobbying agendas, and who publish their annual tax credit benefits in shareholder disclosure reports, are easier to track.

In addition to seeking tax breaks, corporate lobbyists also seek to protect favorable elements that are already baked into US tax policy. Private equity firms, for instance, fight each year to defend the tax treatment of “carried interest’’ payments for investment managers. Those payments are treated as a capital gain by the Internal Revenue Service, and thus taxed at a much lower rate, 20 percent in 2013, than the top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent.

The best-known example of a millionaire benefiting from “carried interest’’ tax treatment was Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, who reduced his individual tax rate to below 15 percent by applying the provision to his extensive Bain Capital profits.

The publicity surrounding Romney’s tax returns fueled an onslaught by critics. The private equity industry’s trade group and the nation’s largest firms spent close to $28 million on lobbying in 2011 and 2012, according to public records. So far, they have won — a benefit that the Obama administration has estimated is worth at least $1 billion over two years. The return on investment for maintaining the status quo on the carried-interest tax rate over two years was at least 3,500 percent.

The returns show how cheap it is, relatively speaking, to buy political influence.

“It’s an end run around policy, and that makes it very efficient,’’ said Raquel Meyer Alexander, a professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia who has examined the investment returns on lobbying. “Firms that sit on the sidelines are going to lose out. Everyone else has lawyered up, lobbied up.’’

Critics lament that fiscal combat between Republicans and Democrats is preventing serious reform of the business tax code.

“What we’re doing is running a Soviet-style, five-year industrial plan for those industries that are clever enough in their lobbying to ask all of us to subsidize their business profits,’’ said Edward D. Kleinbard, a former chief of staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation and now a law professor at the University of Southern California.

“These are perfect examples of Congress putting its thumb on the scale of the free market,’’ he said. “I’ll be damned if I know why I should be subsidizing Whirlpool.’’

Congress has the opportunity every two years to stop doling out a good portion of these favors. A peculiarity of many special tax breaks is that Congress places “sunset’’ provisions on them.

Some observers say passing temporary tax breaks gives lawmakers an ongoing source of campaign funds — from companies that are constantly trying to curry favor to get their tax credits renewed. Others say it’s because making these tax rates permanent would require a 10-year accounting method — a step that would show how much each provision is truly costing taxpayers.

Whatever the reason, Congress has made many of them quasi-permanent, by simply extending them again and again.

“It’s the same cowardice that Congress has on everything. They don’t want to be truthful about what they are doing,’’ said Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and persistent critic of government waste and special deals in the tax code.

Coburn voted against the raft of “extenders’’ when they were previewed and approved by the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing in August 2012. He offered amendments to strip individual tax breaks out of the package — including the high-efficiency appliance tax credit for Whirlpool and GE — but they were shot down by the majority Democrats on the committee, led by chairman Max Baucus, of Montana.

“It’s not about tax policy, it’s about benefiting the political class and the well-connected and the well-heeled in this country,’’ Coburn said in an interview. “We’re benefiting the politicians because they get credit for it. And we are benefiting those who can afford to have greater access than somebody else.’’

Whirlpool pursues its Capitol Hill agenda from an office suite it shares on the seventh floor of a building on Pennsylvania Avenue that is loaded with similar lobbying shops and sits just a few blocks from the Capitol. Across the street, lines of tourists wait to view the original Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at the National Archives.

Whirlpool and other appliance manufacturers won tax breaks for producing high-efficiency washing machines, dishwashers, and refrigerators in 2005, as part of a sweeping package of energy incentives approved by the Republican-controlled Congress.

But that victory was just the beginning of a prolonged effort. Whirlpool and other appliance manufacturers must perpetually work to win renewal of their credits every two years or so. In recent years, the company has spent around $1 million annually on lobbying, up from just $110,000 in 2005.

The fiscal cliff legislation represented the third time the appliance tax credits were included in a tax extenders bill.

Defending the credits has become easier, said a person who has participated in Whirlpool’s lobbying efforts. The extenders, this person explained, is an interlocking package of deals, each with a particular senator or representative demanding its inclusion.

“Some of it is the inherent stickiness of something that is already in the tax code,’’ said the person, who was not authorized to speak about Whirlpool’s efforts and requested anonymity. “If they open Pandora’s box and start taking things out, it’s politically very difficult.’’

The paradoxical posture of senators of both parties was on full display at the hearing last summer of the Senate Finance Committee to consider the most recent package of tax extenders. Some members lamented the system of doling out tax breaks, pledging to reform the corporate code, even as they defended individual items in the legislation and voted to approve it.

The senators said they wanted to provide stability and predictability for businesses that had come to rely on the temporary provisions to stay afloat and retain workers.

They did make an effort to trim the package: Some 20 provisions were left on the cutting room floor, according to data cited in committee. The panel ultimately approved the bill with a bipartisan, 19-to-5 majority.

Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, went to bat for Whirlpool and other companies who she said are creating next-generation appliances that save water and electricity.

“We have one of those major world headquarters in Michigan — and it’s amazing what they are doing,’’ she said. “Right now, we are exporting product, not jobs,’’ she added, without mentioning Whirlpool’s Arkansas plant closure last year.

Former senator John F. Kerry, another member of the committee, said certain industry sectors need temporary tax subsidies. Oil and gas companies, Kerry explained, benefit from permanent tax breaks in the law, while the wind, solar, and other alternative energy interests are forced to come to Congress “hat in hand’’ every two years.

Coming “hat in hand’’ in this context means deploying teams of lobbyists, mostly former Capitol Hill aides. They left their government jobs with an understanding of the tax code and, working in the private sector, are able to leverage their political connections to gain access to congressional leaders and staff.

Among the busiest and most influential of these tax-lobbying teams is Capitol Tax Partners, a firm headed by Lindsay Hooper, and his partner, Jonathan Talisman. Hooper served as a tax counsel to a senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee in the 1980s. Talisman held the post of assistant treasury secretary for tax policy during the Clinton administration. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Capitol Tax Partners lobbied on behalf of 48 companies in 2012, according to its mandatory disclosure reports. That client roster includes a bunch of companies that won tax breaks in the fiscal cliff bill: Whirlpool (energy-efficiency tax credits), State Street Bank (tax treatment of offshore investment income), and the Motion Picture Association of America (tax breaks for domestic film production), to name a few.

In Whirlpool’s case, Capitol Tax Partners and other boutique tax lobbyists helped the company win access to key lawmakers, said the person who has participated in the company’s lobbying efforts.

“There is a certain amount of door-opening and phone-call-answering quality of some of these firms that can be useful to make sure that you are getting your message to the right person at the right point in time,’’ the person said. “But on the substantive issues, these were done by the energy-efficiency advocacy groups and the companies themselves.’’

After the Senate Finance Committee approved the tax extenders package last summer, it remained uncertain when it would materialize on the Senate floor for a final vote. Insiders kept their eyes peeled as the rancorous debate over the fiscal cliff — whether taxes would rise on the middle class wealthy — drowned out any voices discussing corporate tax reform.

Nothing was certain, until majority Democrats rolled out their bill on New Year’s Eve. With tax increases for the rich included, it would raise $27 billion in new revenue in 2013. The Obama administration trumped that figure as helping to reduce the deficit.

But in reality, any gain from taxing the rich was easily eclipsed by waves of tax cuts in the bill — including the $67 billion in the corporate tax breaks that had been resurrected at the last minute and voted on early on Jan. 1.

“They finally do it, and the extenders were bigger than the tax increases on the rich,’’ said Robert McIntyre, director of the advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice. “Wow. What was this fight about?’’

See also:

NY Times Rails Against Fake Drugs, but Ignores the Role of Corporate Power in Creating the Demand

by

by Reclaim Democracy staff
December 3, 2012

a victim of fake drugs? Among the many awful consequences of  many essential pharmaceuticals being priced beyond the reach of those who need them is the proliferation of fake drugs. While some counterfeit drugs are  manufactured by unauthorized producers and simply flout patent law, less scrupulous people are making pills or serums with no active ingredients or even toxic substances.

It’s a deadly problem in need of solutions, so it’s unsurprising the New York Times devoted a recent editorial to “The Problem of Fake and Useless Drugs.”But while the Times editors called for several sensible measures, they did readers a huge disservice by neglecting to mention the primary reason why fake drugs are so prevalent: federal actions that ban market competition, creating artificially high prices that are unaffordable to many who need them.

First, our patent laws grant pharmaceutical corporations long monopolies on essential drugs — even though a majority of the most medically-significant drugs derive from taxpayer-funded research (a situation we described a decade ago, but continues today). These exclusive patents enable companies to charge prices unrelated to costs of research and development or production. *

Further, pharmaceutical corporations routinely employ legal manipulations, illicit non-compete agreements and other tactics to further extend patent monopolies and block production of generic competitors that lower prices.

To make matters worse, federal laws ban importation of drugs or even re-importation of genuine drugs manufactured here. Under the guise of protecting consumers from counterfeit drugs, such laws enable gouging that forces us to regularly pay double or triple the price people pay for identical drugs in other nations, driving the demand for cheap counterfeits.

Of course, when privately-funded research yields an important new drug, the creators should be able to reap significant rewards in order to create strong incentives for real research and development. The trouble is, our present patent system rewards political power above innovation.

And when drugs are developed with publicly-funded research, we should contract private companies to produce them at a fair profit, not give away rights to valuable public property.

We’ve been thrilled to see the Times editors call for amending the Constitution twice in recent months to revoke the runaway political power of corporations, in recent months. This excessive power over agencies that purportedly serve the public underlies the tragedy of fraudulent drugs and the lives they claim.

The  arguments by the NY Times editors, and those made by all who call to revoke corporate personhood, will possess more power if they make such real-life impacts clear.

* See, for example, the current controversy over the AIDS drug Norvir.

Sources for further reading on this topic:

image courtesy bayat

Amazon Plays Hardball on Tax Avoidance in Texas

by

The following is excerpted from “Lines Blur as Texas Gives Industries a Bonanza,” part of a series on corporate tax incentives in the New York Times. Published December 3, 2012 

Tarik Carlton gathered with other workers in February 2011 to hear the bad news: Amazon was shutting its distribution center in Irving, where he loaded trucks for $12.75 an hour.

Business had been strong, but the online retailer did not want to pay a $269 million tax bill from the state comptroller. A standoff with the state ensued, and Amazon laid off the workers. “They didn’t have our interests in heart, truth be told,” Mr. Carlton said.

Amazon opened the distribution facility in 2005 in Irving, near Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and local officials awarded the company tax breaks on its inventory.

Positions at the warehouse included product pickers, dock crews and truck loaders. The employees were typically on the young side, and some had served in the military. The warehouse churned through workers because many could not meet the quota of products they were supposed to move each day, according to Frankie Lloyd, who helped Amazon find temporary workers to fill many of the jobs.

“It’s all about what you can do physically,” Ms. Lloyd said. “Like manufacturing, but without the great pay.”

The distribution business grew as manufacturing moved overseas and online shopping boomed. It is big in the Dallas area because two main train lines run here from Long Beach, Calif., where goods arrive from Asia.

The work is highly physical. One Amazon worker wore a step counter that logged five miles during one shift, according to Mr. Carlton, who only recently found a new job. He was among 12 former Amazon workers, including two warehouse managers, who agreed to be interviewed.

There was no air-conditioning in the warehouse, and Mr. Carlton and others said the temperature could reach 115 degrees. They said it was difficult to take breaks given the production quotas.

The pay was typically $11 to $15 an hour, Ms. Lloyd said. Amazon gave out small shares of stock and some bonuses, but the amounts were minimal, she said.

Amazon said it had been working to upgrade its warehouses, which it calls fulfillment centers. The company has installed air-conditioning in all its centers over the past year, said Dave Clark, the vice president for global customer fulfillment.

Mr. Clark said workers always received breaks, and sometimes free ice cream when the facilities did not have air-conditioning. He said the quotas were akin to “expectations that go along with every job, mine included.”

“I really do think these jobs get a bad rap,” Mr. Clark said. “They’re great jobs. They’re safe jobs.”

Mr. Carlton said he had no idea the company was being partly subsidized. “If you give them money, I think more should be expected,” he said, adding that Amazon should have been required to hire more people to handle the heavy workload.

John Bonnot, the director of business recruitment for the Irving Chamber of Commerce, said the city did not impose wage or benefit requirements on companies that received incentives. Irving had required that Amazon create only 10 jobs to receive the tax break.

Mr. Bonnot said Amazon “would have nothing but praise” for the original assistance from the state and the city, which outsources its economic development to the local chamber.

Things began to slide downhill in late 2010 when the state comptroller, Ms. Combs, demanded that Amazon pay the $269 million sales tax bill. The retailer had never charged its Texas customers the tax, giving it an advantage over on-the-ground competitors.

The company hired three powerful advocates with ties to the governor, according to state lobbyist disclosure records. One, Luis Saenz, had been the director of Mr. Perry’s political operation. Days after the warehouse closed, Mr. Perry said he disagreed with the comptroller’s decision to demand the taxes.

“I was the last person besides the site leader and the administrative assistant to leave the building. It was sad for me because I had gotten my family, my grown kids, to move to Dallas with me, and I didn’t want to transfer back and leave them.”

As it was battling with the comptroller, Amazon began negotiating with the Legislature, which was debating whether online businesses should be required to charge sales tax. The company told lawmakers that it would create up to 6,000 jobs in exchange for delaying sales tax collections, similar to a compromise it had struck in states like South Carolina and Tennessee.

The lawmaker with the most power in the decision was John Otto, a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives. Like all Texas legislators, Mr. Otto’s government job is part time. He also works at Ryan LLC — a job that is not disclosed on his legislative Web site.

Mr. Otto drafted legislation that said online retailers like Amazon would not have to charge sales tax as long as it did not have distribution facilities in Texas. By then, the company had already shut the Irving warehouse.

Mr. Otto and Mr. Saenz declined to comment about the legislation. Amazon would not comment on its negotiations with Texas.

In July, Amazon began collecting sales tax from customers in Texas after the comptroller agreed to release the company from most of its $269 million bill. The company has also promised to open new distribution facilities and hire 2,500 workers. Amazon will owe the state a $1 million penalty if it fails to deliver.

[pullquote] For Texas to give up more than $250 million in tax revenues in exchange for 2,500 jobs amounts to about $100,000 per job.[/pullquote]

The math on the new deal angers former Amazon workers, especially those who are still unemployed. For Texas to give up more than $250 million in tax revenues in exchange for 2,500 jobs amounts to about $100,000 per job. Most distribution workers are paid $20,000 to $30,000 a year. The rest benefits the company’s bottom line, which generally increases executive bonuses and shareholder returns.

King White, a consultant who helps Amazon choose locations, would not comment on the online retailer but said that companies in general had come to view incentives as entitlements. “Everybody thinks they deserve something,” Mr. White said. “ ‘If I’m creating jobs, what’s in it for me?’ ”

The deal on the sales tax did not require Amazon to reopen the Irving facility. That touched off the latest state competition to win over Amazon.

Last month, the city of Schertz beat out neighboring San Antonio for one of Amazon’s warehouses. The company is currently in negotiations with Coppell, outside of Dallas, about an additional center. Like Schertz, Coppell has offered Amazon a deal to keep a part of the sales tax it collects there, among other incentives.

If Amazon accepts, it will be located near Irving and many of its former workers. Sharon Sylvas, 47, had moved from Kansas seven years ago to help Amazon set up the Irving facility. She lives nearby in a one-bedroom apartment with her partner, daughter and two grandchildren.

After Amazon closed, she was out of a job for over a year. With limited options, Ms. Sylvas took a temporary position in October at another company’s distribution center. It is a tougher job than the one at Amazon, and it pays less. For $11 an hour, Ms. Sylvas moves heavy inventory and other items.

She said that if Amazon returned to the area, she would work there again, despite the rigors of warehouse jobs. “It’s real miserable,” Ms. Sylvas said. “But you do it to make a living.”

Image courtesy of John Stich via Diesel.

See also
Amazon Bolts Texas (Columbia Journalism Review)
Amazon Picks U.S. State Sales-Tax Winners (Business Week)
Amazon’s Physical Presence in U.S. and the Sales Tax Battle (American Independent Business Alliance)

Amazon.com Usurps Process of Direct Democracy to Perpetuate Corporate Subsidy

by

By Orson Aguilar and Michelle Romero
First Published by the San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2011

Editor’s Note: Amazon Corporation is the latest corporation to usurp direct democracy to serve its ends. In its quest to continue its tax evasion scheme, Amazon will be fighting against Walmart Corporation, perhaps the most frequent abuser of the process. For those interested in learning more about corporations and the ballot process, this battle will provoke us to update this recently-dormant page, which offers many background resources. For more on why exempting internet corporations from the tax-collection responsibilities storefront businesses must follow, we suggest this Business Week article from our allies at the American Independent Business Alliance.

Amazon.com, the giant Internet retailer, has decided to put an initiative on California’s ballot to try to evade having to pay the same sales taxes that other retailers pay. As the system stands, Amazon’s chance of getting its self-interested proposal on the ballot is essentially 100 percent.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

Amazon, the Internet giant that began as a bookseller and branched out into other retail, has local merchants up against a wall in part because until now it has been able to avoid collecting sales tax on purchases. That gives it an 8 percent or more price advantage over local stores. So the Legislature, faced with an ongoing budget catastrophe that has forced cuts to schools, universities, parks, care for the elderly and other vital government functions, sensibly acted to close this loophole. Now Amazon plans to buy its way onto the ballot to repeal this reasonable action.

This is just the latest example of how our ballot initiative system – designed by reformers a century ago to reduce corporate influence on state government by giving ordinary citizens the ability to make laws – has been turned upside down.

In the past year or so, we have seen oil companies try to strangle our clean energy law, insurance companies seek to evade state rate regulations, a major utility company try to block local governments from establishing public power systems, and a variety of corporate interests push to make it harder to raise taxes or fees on big companies. That said, Californians rightly value their ability to go to the ballot with their own ideas for new laws. The process can have great benefits, but it’s time to figure out how to put citizens, not special interests, back in charge of “citizen democracy.”

Right now, the system is hopelessly skewed toward moneyed interests. Because of the vast number of signatures required and the short time in which they must be gathered, most initiatives qualify largely or entirely through the use of paid signature gatherers. If you have a couple of million bucks to pay petitioners, you can get a proposal onto California’s ballot. It’s as simple as that.

This isn’t what Gov. Hiram Johnson and his fellow reformers intended when they created the initiative system. That’s why the Greenlining Institute and other organizations have begun to return the system to the ideal of citizen democracy.

Our polling and research suggest several potential reforms. Voters consistently want more reliable information on who supports and opposes initiatives. There is also interest in a formal process for reviewing and revising proposed initiatives, through either an independent citizens’ commission or perhaps the state Supreme Court. And we need to find ways to make the system accessible to true grassroots initiatives, perhaps by lowering the signature count required.

We don’t have all the answers yet, but we’re convinced the system can be fixed.

Orson Aguilar is executive director and Michelle Romero is redistricting fellow of the Greenlining Institute.

© 2011 SF Chronicle

The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates

by

Actual taxes paid by consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies now is less than half the statutory rate

By Robert McIntyre and T.D. Coo Nguyen
First published by the Multinational Monitor, Vol 25, No. 11

Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

  • Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
  • Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
  • In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
  • In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
  • Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year – more than double the 1998-2000 average.

Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.

In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the 1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting firms.

Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate tax-sheltering activities.

Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses.

Billions and billions

Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits – $557 billion – to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.

In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only $363 billion.

Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by $43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003, for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years – $87.1 billion – went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half dollars in tax breaks.

General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with $9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

Industrial divide

Effective tax rates varied widely by industry. Over the 2001-2003 period, industry effective tax rates for the 275 corporations ranged from a low of 1.6 percent to a high of 27.7 percent.

In 2003, the range of industry tax rates was even greater, ranging from a low of -30.0 percent (a negative rate) up to a high of 27.9 percent.

  • Aerospace and defense companies enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate over the three years, paying only 1.6 percent of their profits in federal income taxes. This industry’s taxes declined sharply over the three years, falling to -30.0 percent of profits in 2003.
  • Other very low-tax industries, paying less than half the statutory 35 percent tax rate over the entire 2001-2003 period, included: transportation (4.3 percent), industrial and farm equipment (6.2 percent), telecommunications (7.5 percent), electronics and electrical equipment (10.8 percent), petroleum and pipelines (13.3 percent), miscellaneous services (14.4 percent), gas and electric utilities (14.4 percent), computers, office equipment, software and data (16.0 percent), and metals & metal products (17.4 percent).
  • Not a single industry paid an effective tax rate of more than 29 percent, either for the entire three-year period or in any given year.

Within industries, effective tax rates also varied widely. For example, over the three-year period, average tax rates on oil companies ranged from 3.0 percent for Devon Energy up to 31.4 percent on Marathon Oil. Among aerospace and defense companies, three-year effective tax rates ranged from a low of -18.8 percent for Boeing up to a high of 25.0 percent for General Dynamics.

How they do it

There are myriad reasons why particular corporations paid low taxes. The key major tax-lowering items revealed in the companies’ annual reports – plus some that are not disclosed – include:

Accelerated depreciation. According to Yuan Pay Group papers, the tax laws generally allow companies to write off their capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out. This “accelerated depreciation” is technically a tax deferral, but so long as a company continues to invest, the tax deferral tends to be indefinite. In 2002 and again in 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed new business tax breaks totaling $175 billion over the 2002-2004 period. These new tax subsidies centered on a huge expansion in accelerated depreciation, coupled with rules making it easier for companies with an excess of tax breaks to get tax rebate checks from the Treasury by applying their excess tax deductions to earlier years and still other new tax subsidies.

Atop the list of accelerated depreciation beneficiaries are SBC Communications, with $5.8 billion in accelerated depreciation tax savings, Verizon (with $4.5 billion), Devon Energy ($4.4 billion), ExxonMobil ($2.9 billion) and Wachovia ($2.8 billion).

Stock options. Most big corporations give their executives and other employees options to buy the company’s stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, corporations can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it is worth. But in reporting profits to shareholders, companies do not treat the effects of stock-option transactions as business expenses – based on the arguable theory that issuing stock at a discount doesn’t really reduce profits because the market value of a company’s stock often has only a very attenuated relation to earnings.

The corporate tax benefits from stock option write-offs are quite large. Of the 275 corporations, 269 received stock-option tax benefits over the 2001-2003 period, which lowered their taxes by a total of $32 billion over three years. The benefits ranged from as high as $5 billion for Microsoft over the three years to tiny amounts for a few companies.

Overall, tax benefits from stock options cut the average effective corporate tax rate for the 275 companies by 3 percentage points over the 2001-2003 period.

The benefits declined after 2001, however, falling from $13 billion in 2001 to about $9.5 billion a year in 2002 and 2003. The tax-rate effects of stock options are likely to continue to decline as accounting standards are changed to reduce the disparity between the book and tax treatment of options.

Tax credits. The federal tax code also provides tax credits for companies that engage in certain activities – for example, research (on top of allowing immediate expensing of research investments), certain kinds of oil drilling, exporting, hiring low-wage workers, affordable housing and supposedly enhanced coal (alternative fuel). As credits, these directly reduce a company’s taxes.

Some credits have unexpected beneficiaries. For instance, Bank of America cut its taxes by $580 million over the 2001-2003 period by purchasing affordable-housing tax credits. Clorox saved $36 million, Kimberly-Clark, $115 million, and Illinois Tool Works, an unspecified amount, from those same credits. Bank of New York obtained $100 million in alternative fuel credits over that period. Marriot International operates four coal-based synthetic fuel facilities solely for the tax benefits, which cut Marriot’s taxes by $233 million in 2003 and $159 million in 2002.

Offshore tax sheltering. Over the past decade, corporations and their accounting firms have become increasingly aggressive in seeking ways to shift their profits, on paper, into offshore tax havens, in order to avoid their tax obligations. Some companies have gone so far as to renounce their U.S. “citizenship” and reincorporate in Bermuda or other tax-haven countries to facilitate tax sheltering activity.

Not surprisingly, corporations do not explicitly disclose their abusive tax sheltering in their annual reports. For example, Wachovia’s extensive schemes to shelter its U.S. profits from tax are cryptically described in the notes to its annual reports merely as “leasing.” It took extensive digging by PBS’s Frontline researchers to discover that Wachovia’s tax shelter involved pretending to own and lease back municipal assets in Germany, such as sewers and rail tracks, a practice heavily promoted by some accounting firms. Other tax shelter devices, such as abuses of “transfer pricing,” also go unspecified in corporate annual reports. Nevertheless, corporate offshore tax sheltering is estimated to cost the U.S. Treasury anywhere from $30 billion to $70 billion a year, and presumably the effects of these shelters are reflected in the bottom-line results of what companies pay in tax.

Tax Reform (& Deform) Options

Almost two decades after the major corporate tax reforms under Ronald Reagan in 1986, many of the problems that those reforms were designed to address have re-emerged, along with an array of new corporate tax-avoidance techniques.

If policymakers wanted to reform the corporate income tax to curb tax subsidies and make the taxation of different industries and companies more equal, they certainly could do so. They could focus on the long list of corporate tax breaks, or as they are officially called, “corporate tax expenditures” produced each year by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Treasury. They could reinstate a stronger corporate Alternative Minimum Tax that really does the job it was originally designed to do. They could rethink the way the corporate income tax currently treats stock options. They could adopt restrictions on abusive corporate tax sheltering, as the Clinton Treasury Department proposed. They could reform the way multinational corporations allocate their profits between the United States and foreign countries, so that U.S. taxable profits are not artificially shifted offshore.

But all signs point to movement in the opposite direction. In October, Congress adopted legislation to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that an export tax subsidy violates certain WTO obligations. The legislation closed some heavily criticized corporate loopholes that almost everyone agrees are unwarranted. But at the same time, the bill expanded existing and created new tax breaks – to the tune of $210 billion, mostly for corporations. They even include measures that would make it easier (and more lucrative) for companies to shift taxable profits, and potentially jobs, overseas.

The tax bill will further reduce corporate taxes substantially over time. In fact, one of the biggest winners under the bill will be General Electric, the company that already enjoys more tax subsidies under existing law than any among the 275 Fortune 500 firms making a consistent profit from 2001 to 2003.

Robert McIntyre is Director of the Citizens for Tax Justice. T. D. Coo Nguyen works with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. This article is based on the two organizations’ report, “Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years,” published in September 2004.

© 2005 Multinational Monitor

See our index of articles on corporate welfare and tax evasion