Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

A little over two weeks ago, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, penned an op-ed critical of the low tax rates for the superrich. It would seem his own company hasn't prioritized paying its rightful share in a timely fashion either.

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-suporter-warren-buffetts-co-hasnt-paid-some-taxes-since-2002/

The New York Post explains:

That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years … within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.



http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett triggered a major debate over taxes recently when he wrote in The New York Times that he should be paying more to the federal government. He called on Washington lawmakers to up tax rates on the rich.
But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.


Way to go Obama. Name a tax rule after a Billion dollar tax cheat. Why am I not suprised? Thats right his boy tim geithner was a tax cheat too. Why do they want people to pay more taxes when they don't pay their own?

[peacepipe]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-suporter-warren-buffetts-co-hasnt-paid-some-taxes-since-2002/



http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/



Way to go Obama. Name a tax rule after a Billion dollar tax cheat. Why am I not suprised? Thats right his boy tim geithner was a tax cheat too. Why do they want people to pay more taxes when they don't pay their own?

FYI,tim geitners' a republican hired by paulson during the GWB admin.

either way the rich still need to pay higher taxes $250,000 & up.

[alkemical]

It was funny on the radio this AM when the news story came across Foxnews Radio on the AM band:

"The rich need to pay taxes at the same rate of the middle class"

So, according to fox news radio - the rich are pissed about paying the same taxation rate the middle class does.

LOL! Made me laugh and crystallized the whole situation.

[Smiling Assassin27]

either way the rich still need to pay higher taxes $250,000 & up


why 250K, out of curiosity? is that the amount that those whom you parrot have arbitrarily picked, or is there some component of economic reasoning in there somewhere? Why not $200k? Why not 300K? I'm guessing you don't earn either of these figures, and so may not exactly be able to objectively say which figure is 'more fair' than the other.

[Arkie]

I'm sure 250K is a political calculation instead of an economic one.

[peacepipe]

I'm sure 250K is a political calculation instead of an economic one.that number was set 10 yrs ago when the bush tax cuts went into place.

[peacepipe]

why 250K, out of curiosity? is that the amount that those whom you parrot have arbitrarily picked, or is there some component of economic reasoning in there somewhere? Why not $200k? Why not 300K? I'm guessing you don't earn either of these figures, and so may not exactly be able to objectively say which figure is 'more fair' than the other.it was a good enough number for GWB to use.

[cutthemdown]

why 250K, out of curiosity? is that the amount that those whom you parrot have arbitrarily picked, or is there some component of economic reasoning in there somewhere? Why not $200k? Why not 300K? I'm guessing you don't earn either of these figures, and so may not exactly be able to objectively say which figure is 'more fair' than the other.

They picked that amount because 1 million is a joke. They say millionaire to get people frothed up at the mouth. Truth is there isn't enough people who make 1 million a yr to get much revenue. you have to shoot lower where there are more taxpayers. The 200 grand for singles and 250 for couples hits those marks.

[alkemical]

why 250K, out of curiosity? is that the amount that those whom you parrot have arbitrarily picked, or is there some component of economic reasoning in there somewhere? Why not $200k? Why not 300K? I'm guessing you don't earn either of these figures, and so may not exactly be able to objectively say which figure is 'more fair' than the other.

LOL, sort of curious, eh?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.
In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2011)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

[Smiling Assassin27]

that number was set 10 yrs ago when the bush tax cuts went into place.

that's not my question. the question is WHY. do you not think that incomes have changed, costs have changed, GDP has changed in 10 years? what makes the $250k figure any better than any other?

[peacepipe]

that's not my question. the question is WHY. do you not think that incomes have changed, costs have changed, GDP has changed in 10 years? what makes the $250k figure any better than any other?

We should've asked that question back then,now it's a bit late to be asking. 250,000 was a good round number to start with then & it still is today.

[Smiling Assassin27]

They picked that amount because 1 million is a joke. They say millionaire to get people frothed up at the mouth. Truth is there isn't enough people who make 1 million a yr to get much revenue. you have to shoot lower where there are more taxpayers. The 200 grand for singles and 250 for couples hits those marks.

ok, so the economic rationale is that you have to tax 200k and up to get the revenue you need--to do what exactly? oh yes, SPEND it. has it been demonstrated that taxing 200k and up will actually accomplish the goal of bringing in the revenues they want? nope. so really, this 200k stuff is arbitrary and self-defeating.

In reality, the people who are genuinely 'rich' are the ones who will be LEAST hurt by this foolish plan.

[Smiling Assassin27]

We should've asked that question back then,now it's a bit late to be asking. 250,000 was a good round number to start with then & it still is today.

really? a good round number is what we're gonna put our faith in? is that anything like 'shovel ready'? we can STILL ask that question today, but nobody seems to be interested. instead, politicians are going for votes, not economic recovery.

you say it's still a good round number today. but why? is a person making $250k today as well off as the one who made $250k 10 years ago? is inflation higher or lower now than then? this is arbitrary crap. if you're gonna tax me more, you'd better have a better reason than 'it's a nice, round number'.

[peacepipe]

ok, so the economic rationale is that you have to tax 200k and up to get the revenue you need--to do what exactly? oh yes, SPEND it. has it been demonstrated that taxing 200k and up will actually accomplish the goal of bringing in the revenues they want? nope. so really, this 200k stuff is arbitrary and self-defeating.

In reality, the people who are genuinely 'rich' are the ones who will be LEAST hurt by this foolish plan.

you must have been in a coma during the Clinton yrs when we balanced the budget & created jobs during a time when taxes were raised.

[peacepipe]

really? a good round number is what we're gonna put our faith in? is that anything like 'shovel ready'? we can STILL ask that question today, but nobody seems to be interested. instead, politicians are going for votes, not economic recovery.

you say it's still a good round number today. but why? is a person making $250k today as well off as the one who made $250k 10 years ago? is inflation higher or lower now than then? this is arbitrary crap. if you're gonna tax me more, you'd better have a better reason than 'it's a nice, round number'.you paying your fair share is good enough reason.

[Mr.Meanie]

Regarding the original article - Berkshire Hathaway had a tax assessment it disputed with the IRS. This is exactly how you handle a dispute, and if they owe it they will pay, and if they don't they won't.

Paying out money they don't believe they owe is not in the best interest of the shareholders, and the BRK board has a fiduciary responsibility to advance the interests their shareholders.

But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade.It seems some people still can't seem to comprehend that Buffett is not Berkshire, and his arguments regarding taxation are at the individual level, not the corporate level. A corporation has a responsibility to generate maximum profits for its shareholders, and any CEO who voluntarily pays more than the corp. owes has breached his responsibility to his shareholders and should (would) be fired.

[ant1999e]

We should've asked that question back then,now it's a bit late to be asking. 250,000 was a good round number to start with then & it still is today.

LOL To start with.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Buffett has been dishonest from the beginning anyway. He barely pays any income tax because he works for something like 100K. He takes all of his tax hit in capital gains, which is where he makes his money.

[Mr.Meanie]

Buffett has been dishonest from the beginning anyway. He barely pays any income tax because he works for something like 100K. He takes all of his tax hit in capital gains, which is where he makes his money.

He's always been extremely upfront about his compensation, and in fact I think he is probably one of the most scrutinized capitalists on the planet. His income comes almost exclusively from dividends and capital gains, not CEO salary. The same goes for many founders, including Jobs and Eric Schmidt.

It's obvious the real reason you feel compelled to try to demonize the most brilliant investor (arguably) in history is because he recently made some comments you don't agree with. Pretty ****ing sad, dude.

[Smiling Assassin27]

He's always been extremely upfront about his compensation, and in fact I think he is probably one of the most scrutinized capitalists on the planet.

See, I can't agree with this. He deceptively claims he pays a less tax rate than his secretary, when he really does not. He conveniently leaves out a significant portion of the tax he pays on his income with respect to capital gains/investments and then expects us to buy his line hook, line, and sinker. That's dishonest.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He's always been extremely upfront about his compensation, and in fact I think he is probably one of the most scrutinized capitalists on the planet. His income comes almost exclusively from dividends and capital gains, not CEO salary. The same goes for many founders, including Jobs and Eric Schmidt.

It's obvious the real reason you feel compelled to try to demonize the most brilliant investor (arguably) in history is because he recently made some comments you don't agree with. Pretty ****ing sad, dude.

He was dishonest.

If you weren't so blinded by your bias, you wouldn't be so willing to buy what he's selling.

That's pretty sad, dude.

[Smiling Assassin27]

you paying your fair share is good enough reason.

well wait a minute. what about those who pay NO share? is that 'fair'? if so, why? if not, why not? you're giving me platitudes but no logic with which to arrive at what's fair and what is highway robbery. i would think your burden would be to make the case that $200k or $250k or $1 is 'fair', 'equitable', and most importantly, stimulating to the economy and/or guaranteed to raise the revenues you claim you need for spending programs.

hey, if you can make a plausible case, i'm pretty reasonable and will accept it. but don't tell me you want more of my money just because YOU think it'd be fair. that's not the way to enact policy and our President really ought to know this.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Buffett has been dishonest from the beginning anyway. He barely pays any income tax because he works for something like 100K. He takes all of his tax hit in capital gains, which is where he makes his money.

It's not just Buffett.

http://econ.tau.ac.il/papers/IO/May%205%20-%20Gatekeepers%20Pay%20Hannes.pdf

The change in compensation practice was no less than a revolution. While in 1985, the value of the options granted was only 8% of the average CEO total compensation, in the period between 1992 to1998, their value rose from 15% to 40%, peaking in 2000 at 78% of the average total compensation.

[Mr.Meanie]

See, I can't agree with this. He deceptively claims he pays a less tax rate than his secretary, when he really does not. He conveniently leaves out a significant portion of the tax he pays on his income with respect to capital gains/investments and then expects us to buy his line hook, line, and sinker. That's dishonest.

No, he's explicitly stated over and over the reasons WHY he pays less tax rate... because the current tax code favors capital gains and dividends and punishes salaried income. I was just watching a CNBC interview where he said he took home something like $41M in personal income, which something like 98% of it was taxed at the 15% dividend/cap gains tax rate.

How is that dishonest, when the very basis of his ENTIRE argument is about the current tax code's treatment of investment income?

[Popcorn Sutton]

well wait a minute. what about those who pay NO share? is that 'fair'? if so, why? if not, why not? you're giving me platitudes but no logic with which to arrive at what's fair and what is highway robbery. i would think your burden would be to make the case that $200k or $250k or $1 is 'fair', 'equitable', and most importantly, stimulating to the economy and/or guaranteed to raise the revenues you claim you need for spending programs.

hey, if you can make a plausible case, i'm pretty reasonable and will accept it. but don't tell me you want more of my money just because YOU think it'd be fair. that's not the way to enact policy and our President really ought to know this.

For those who receive a disproportionate amount of income from capital gains (Buffett types), they pay less by percentage than the middle class. As I posted earlier, there has been a significant shift in executive pay towards stock-based incentives.

The change in compensation practice was no less than a revolution. While in 1985, the value of the options granted was only 8% of the average CEO total compensation, in the period between 1992 to1998, their value rose from 15% to 40%, peaking in 2000 at 78% of the average total compensation.

I'm curious what would you propose in this instance?

[TheDave]

This thread is really sad... HS are going to have to mandate basic business and finance. People simply do not understand what they are reading.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

>>It seems some people still can't seem to comprehend that Buffett is not Berkshire, and his arguments regarding taxation are at the individual level, not the corporate level.<<

Well, consider who started the thread... Ha!

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

It seems some people still can't seem to comprehend that Buffett is not Berkshire, and his arguments regarding taxation are at the individual level, not the corporate level. A corporation has a responsibility to generate maximum profits for its shareholders, and any CEO who voluntarily pays more than the corp. owes has breached his responsibility to his shareholders and should (would) be fired.

And what's timmy geithner's excuse?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This thread is really sad... HS are going to have to mandate basic business and finance. People simply do not understand what they are reading.

The George W. Bushes, Sarah Palins, and Michele Bachmanns of the world are counting on it.

[cutthemdown]

The George W. Bushes, Sarah Palins, and Michele Bachmanns of the world are counting on it.

Yeah because the Obama, Biden, Pelosi's are so informative and upfront right?

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

The George W. Bushes, Sarah Palins, and Michele Bachmanns of the world are counting on it.

Quick! What's Obama GPA in college?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quick! What's Obama GPA in college?

Quick! Change the subject again in the hope that no one will notice you exposed your ignorance in this thread. :mullet1:

[peacepipe]

Quick! What's Obama GPA in college?

LOL, you birthers are pathetic. lost your propaganda fight on obamas birth place & now trying to switch it to his grades in college. karl rove would be proud.

[Popcorn Sutton]

See, I can't agree with this. He deceptively claims he pays a less tax rate than his secretary, when he really does not. He conveniently leaves out a significant portion of the tax he pays on his income with respect to capital gains/investments and then expects us to buy his line hook, line, and sinker. That's dishonest.

His point is exactly this Assassin. He pays 15% on capital gains and dividends which make up the lion share of his income.

His secretary doesn't make all this money off of investments so her effective tax rate is in the mid 20s.

[Smiling Assassin27]

President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.



There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

Even Obama's water carriers are calling BS on this schtick. Buffett and Obama are just a couple of snake oil salesman.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

[Smiling Assassin27]

His point is exactly this Assassin. He pays 15% on capital gains and dividends which make up the lion share of his income.

His secretary doesn't make all this money off of investments so her effective tax rate is in the mid 20s.

No, he pays HIGHER because his dividends are taxed TWICE, not once at 15%, so really his rate of taxation is 30%, not 15%.

[Popcorn Sutton]

No, he pays HIGHER because his dividends are taxed TWICE, not once at 15%, so really his rate of taxation is 30%, not 15%.

OK, Dividends are taxed at the corporate level and ONCE to the individual. If you apply that math to the middle class then they are taxed higher still. First at the corporation and then at their individual tax rate. Buffett still comes out ahead by earning most of his income from investments.

All this BS is the exact reason why our tax code is a joke and lobbyists have so much power in Washington. Tax the corporations a flat consumption tax at like 10% and individuals at 10% for the first $100,000 and 25% for everything higher. Yes, pretty similar to Paul Ryan's plan. The tax code would fit on a 3x5 note card. Do this and half the lobbyists in Washington would be out of a job.

[Popcorn Sutton]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.


http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html

[Mr.Meanie]

No, he pays HIGHER because his dividends are taxed TWICE, not once at 15%, so really his rate of taxation is 30%, not 15%.

How do you still not understand that Buffett is not Berkshire? Money doesn't just get marked with a tracker that says it's only already been taxed once and never again.

Money is taxed pretty much every time it changes hands. For example, I spend my $1,000 at Best Buy and pay sales tax. Best Buy pays commission to my salesman and pays both payroll, income and sales tax on the sale. The salesperson then pays payroll and income tax on his commission, and then sales tax on any items he buys with his leftover money. Best buy pays it's Managers, Officers and CEO out of a little portion of my $1,000, and also pays payroll taxes on that too.

After Best Buy looks at it's quarterly earnings, it decides to distribute back some money to it's investors, so all the millions of investors get that tiny fraction of my $1,000 and they pay dividend taxes. And then when they eventually sell their shares they pay capital gains taxes on the tiny, miniscule fraction of the value my original dollars added to their investment.

Public companies that pay dividends are made up of millions of investors. They are separate entities than their investors. This such an utterly basic tenant of commerce that I can't comprehend how it's so difficult to understand...

[Smiling Assassin27]

How do you still not understand that Buffett is not Berkshire?

I understand what you're getting at. Legally, you have a point, but in terms of income earning, it's incorrect. When Buffett invests in Coca Cola, say, he is part owner of that company--that's what owning stock IS. Now, when the company that he owns makes money that it plans to distribute as dividends, that money is taxed at 35% when it is earned. That's money that the owner of Coke does not get due to taxation. Dividends would be HIGHER if that tax did not exist, and so it affects Buffet individually and applies as a tax on HIM AND Coke. Then, the company pays out dividends to Buffett and, alas, he's hit again with taxes for that. So the artificial distinction you make between Buffett and Coke (in this case), is not valid insomuch as Buffett gets money taken from him at the corporate level AND personal level, and the net effect is that Buffett pays more in taxes.

If you want to mess with tax codes ( personally, i'm not convinced because of the reasons already given above), then maybe you lower the corporate tax to 0% and impose the total of taxation on the individual at a higher rate. That would allow medium and small companies to retain their earnings in order to spur growth and jobs. You've just made capital cheap for the job engine of America.

At best, he's being deceptive in what he ACTUALLY pays in tax. At worst, he's pushing taxes that he STILL would get around paying (that others could not)under Obama's plan.

[Smiling Assassin27]

All this BS is the exact reason why our tax code is a joke and lobbyists have so much power in Washington.

On this we can agree.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Quick! Change the subject again in the hope that no one will notice you exposed your ignorance in this thread. :mullet1:

How transparent of this Prez?

[Mr.Meanie]

I understand what you're getting at. Legally, you have a point, but in terms of income earning, it's incorrect. When Buffett invests in Coca Cola, say, he is part owner of that company--that's what owning stock IS. Now, when the company that he owns makes money that it plans to distribute as dividends, that money is taxed at 35% when it is earned. That's money that the owner of Coke does not get due to taxation. Dividends would be HIGHER if that tax did not exist, and so it affects Buffet individually and applies as a tax on HIM AND Coke. Then, the company pays out dividends to Buffett and, alas, he's hit again with taxes for that. So the artificial distinction you make between Buffett and Coke (in this case), is not valid insomuch as Buffett gets money taken from him at the corporate level AND personal level, and the net effect is that Buffett pays more in taxes.

If you want to mess with tax codes ( personally, i'm not convinced because of the reasons already given above), then maybe you lower the corporate tax to 0% and impose the total of taxation on the individual at a higher rate. That would allow medium and small companies to retain their earnings in order to spur growth and jobs. You've just made capital cheap for the job engine of America.

At best, he's being deceptive in what he ACTUALLY pays in tax. At worst, he's pushing taxes that he STILL would get around paying (that others could not)under Obama's plan.

Small and medium companies are typically in entities that allow flow through income like LLCs and S-corps. They don't deal with double taxation. This only becomes an issue when companies raise money from outside investors, have a lot of shareholders, or plan to eventually go public. A c-corp is treated as a separate entity, a completely separate taxpayer. Just about anytime one taxpayer sells goods/services to another taxpayer, they pay taxes on it.

And your point that dividends would be higher if there were no corp. income tax... well no kidding. That argument could literally be applied to everything in our economy. Wages would be higher without payroll taxes, prices would be lower without income and payroll taxes... basically everything is double and triple taxed. Using that argument exclusively for dividends and not wages, prices and everything else is disingenuous.

I personally like the idea of lower corporate/personal taxes, but I understand the practical value of taxes to the community and country as a whole. There are countless government-paid resources I have used in my businesses that have contributed to my success, and I have to agree with Cuban that it's patriotic to pay what you owe. The major disagreements seem to be only over a few percentage points, and yet some people feel the need to smear and try to discredit one of the most brilliant and influential capitalists in our nation's history because he thinks income taxes on the wealthy are too low right now.