GE Pays Zero Taxes: Hate the Game, Not the Player
GE made $14.2 billion in profits last year but paid zero corporate taxes to the United States Government. Legally.
GE made $14.2 billion in profits last year but paid zero corporate taxes to the United States Government. Legally.
NYT (“G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether“):
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.
Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
[…]
A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.
Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.
Company officials say that these measures are necessary for G.E. to compete against global rivals and that they are acting as responsible citizens. “G.E. is committed to acting with integrity in relation to our tax obligations,” said Anne Eisele, a spokeswoman. “We are committed to complying with tax rules and paying all legally obliged taxes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our shareholders to legally minimize our costs.”
While there’s plenty of buzz on Twitter and the blogs this morning about this travesty, the fact of the matter is that G.E. is doing exactly what it should be doing: maximizing its profits using every legal tool at its disposal. The problem here is not with a greedy corporation but with a humongous tax code that creates loopholes for favored players.
We should lower corporate tax rates to levels comparable to–and perhaps even slightly below–those in the rest of the developed world and simultaneously eliminate the loopholes that indeed amount to corporate welfare. With rates more than double what other countries impose, multinationals based in the U.S. have every incentive to transfer their profits elsewhere and pay their taxes to other governments. We should incentivize them to pay their taxes here and stop giving breaks to companies for the mere act of lobbying Congress.
“We should lower corporate tax rates to levels comparable to–and perhaps even slightly below–those in the rest of the developed world and simultaneously eliminate the loopholes that indeed amount to corporate welfare. ”
Absolutely, see also all the crazy credits energy companies get, the way the R&D credit has been abused (inflate anything and call it “research”) …
(But completely impossible, right? Is this why Steve V’s chart of “uncertainty” about “our system of government and how well it works” looks so bad?)
Hate the game but not the player? Just exactly who do you think wrote all those “loopholes for favored players”? The Congressmen who introduced the legislation? Not.
That sounds really good James, but just exactly who do think is going to write that legislation?
Remember the Golden Rule…
A question James: Why are they incentivized to pay taxes in other countries when with a little political jujitso they too can avoid paying any taxes at all?
Fun fact: your corporate tax rate is above that of Sweden’s.
Of course, there are nuances to the situation, but still.
Problem is, either the voters need to speak up about what they want out of a new tax code and system, or some politician has to take time to argue for one, and lead.
The disconnect between voters and politicians would be very great on such a complicated issue.
So, corporations benefit from our government just as much, if not more, than an average citizen.
Yet, we should lower their tax rates.
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Tom,
Sure, GE lobbied for the loopholes. But why wouldn’t they? That’s the system they’re playing in.
Tell me something James, do you think that if I lobbied for a few loopholes, I (or you for that matter) would get them?
You admit the game is rigged, you admit to who has done the rigging of the game, and yet you can’t blame them for the absolute theft of our democracy? Sometimes I wonder….
Humongous tax codes do not create loopholes – lawmakers create laws that contain loopholes, and they do it because they are either on the take, or because they have an ideological aversion to taxing the wealthy. They are the problem.
“Sure, GE lobbied for the loopholes. But why wouldn’t they? That’s the system they’re playing in.”
And so, what do you think the chances are of the loopholes being eliminated and GE paying corporate taxes in the future? Especially under a Republican Congress which is determined not to raise taxes on anyone?
Since liberals “own” tax, they also own “lobbying” apparently.
We should
incentivizeforce them to pay their taxes here and stop giving breaks to companies for the mere act of lobbying Congress.Fixed that for you.
Hate the Game, Not the Player
In this case the players set the rules of the game, so I think I’ll go ahead and hate them for it. We didn’t end up with this tax code because Congress doesn’t know what they’re doing. We ended up with this tax code because that’s exactly what GE and other giant multinationals wanted and paid for.
I’d be in favor of getting rid of the loopholes BEFORE we lower the corporate tax rate.
The question should be asked how much has GE paid in income taxes over the last ten years? Timing differences can make one year good for taxes and another bad. While we’re at it how many other taxes did GE pay? Property tax, employment tax, and others I’m sure. Dividends paid to the stockholders were taxable to them as well. Let’s not also forget the benefit they provide the country by employing thousands upon thousands from coast to coast.
So in the end whether GE paid any corporate income tax for 2010 is immaterial. Business is by far a net benefit to society and needs to be appreciated as such. Lefties can keep complaining but without American business there would be no America.
Who exactly lobbied for the “‘green energy’ credits for its wind turbines” ?
I know libertarians and neo-Marxists like to demonize big business, but I would wager most of the credits/loopholes G.E. takes advantage of were at one time used by members of Congress to brag about what he/she did to help the environment, realign profit incentives to public goals, encourage domestic investment and/or create jobs, etc.
And right on cue, Mr. Plunk comes to the defense.
I’m with Steven. In fact, I’m a very big net benefit to my little slice of society; just ask anyone that has the pleasure of knowing me. I’m going to start lobbying Congress to eliminate my income taxes. I pay sales tax, fer cripes sake, and I buy a lot of stuff to keep the economy going!
Steven Plunk is simply making the same argument, I and others make, when a post reads that half of all Americans don’t pay taxes. I similarly think it’s fair to look at total taxation of corporate revenues.
Businesses are appreciated for their net positive impact on society, and they are richly rewarded for that contribution. In fact, if you believe in the market system, you probably accept that businesses are rewarded for their net benefits to society in rough proportion to the size of that net benefit. The issue here is simply whether these businesses should then be expected to pay their fair share of taxes to fund the social infrastructure that makes their profitable activities possible.
as a GE share-holder…thank you so very much.
as a US citizen…this is why it frosts my nuts every time boehner or cantor or ryan or any of these corporate shills get in front of the camera and say we need to lower taxes because the tax burden is making US corporations uncompetitive. they never ever ever ever talk about the effective tax rate. ipso facto…they lie. then they repeat the lies over and over again until a pitifully mis-informed populace supports cutting corporate taxes because…they are a competitive burden. add in a little help from a media that doesn’t bother to question anything (think death panels) and voila – more deficit.
Our “representatives” in Congress. who are in constant fund-raising mode and like to be treated as big-shots, have created a tax system that offers great rewards to those who successfully lobby them for favors. Wow, what a surprise.
The “game” isn’t (just) the tax code. The tax code is the logical outcome of the incentives in our system. To a large extent, these incentives have always existed, but I suspect that things have gotten worse now because of the way our political climate has changed over the past few decades (i.e. the increasing expense of campaigns, the decreasing political influence of unions, etc).
“We should incentivize them to pay their taxes here and stop giving breaks to companies for the mere act of lobbying Congress.”
Totally agree. But it’s going to be tricky taking away their tax breaks and convincing them that their “fair share” is more than zero. I can’t think of a single Republican that would do it, and if a Democrat did it, forget it…..you thought death panels was bad? Just wait till the Kenyan socialist goes after someone’s tax breaks?
For your info john personna
the “effective” corporate tax rate in the US
now is just slightly over 20%, down from
about 50% in 1950.
that is actual taxes paid as a % of profits
According to a study by the Treasury
that makes it about average for all
OECD countries.
You can have a tax code that is:
Effective – collects revenue efficiently.
Fair – Treats similarly situated taxpayers alike without undue advantages to those with imaginative tax advisers.
Simple – meaning simple.
Pick any two.
On a related note GE CEO and chairman of the board Jeffrey Immelt was recently appointed by President Obama to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This is presumably for his acumen in engineering things so that GE pays no federal income tax.
Just for the record I think that the corporate income tax should be abolished and that the personal income tax rates raised, particularly at higher income levels, to compensate for the lost revenue. However, if we’re going to have a corporate income tax IMO the various provisions that aim to engineer behavior should be removed and the tax should fall on all corporations in proportion to their income.
The present tax system has too much power as a weapon for old, established companies to wield against upstarts.
What? No response to the issue of timing differences and what GE has paid in the last ten years? Looks like a lot of misplaced anger and blame around here.
Steven made a classic “argument from missing data” and anyone who fell for it should be ashamed.
He says “we should ask the 10 year data” and then assumes it will be in his favor.
DC, That’s all the argument you can contribute? Of course I’ll be defending business against unfair attacks just as our liberal Lefties will be on the offensive. The fact remains it is not unusual or unfair that a corporation pay no income tax in a given year. What matters is overall taxes for a longer period of time. People were just complaining about the lack of corporate investment yet those capital investments are allowed accelerated depreciation that cuts taxes early but lets them catch up later.
“What matters is overall taxes for a longer period of time.”
So what exactly is GE’s 10-year average, Plunk?
john p, I’m not throwing out accusations so I would assume it proper to ask those who are to provide the appropriate data. Make your case but make it complete. Otherwise you are misleading with only partial truth. I suppose the fact GE lost money isn’t a good enough reason not to pay income taxes last year. At least that’s what the anti-business contingent of OTB seems to think.
Steven, I would have to be much stupider than I am, to believe that your claim is actually some claim of my own.
You are the one who introduced 10-year earnings. Put up, or shut up.
Of course I’ll be defending business against
unfair attacks just as our liberal Lefties will be on the offensive.Fixed that for you.
“No response to the issue of timing differences and what GE has paid in the last ten years?”
No, Steve, because taxes are levied yearly. Not by the decade. So it doesn’t even matter what they paid over the last decade.
The only reason why GE should be paying nothing in income taxes for 2010 is if they have no income for 2010.
I suppose the fact GE lost money isn’t a good enough reason not to pay income taxes last year.
It’s not wise to lie when the truth is printed at the top of the page, Plunker.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Apparently, to Grandmaster Plunk, $14.2 billion in profits is a loss.
I believe Steven is referring to carryover losses; if I were to look for them it would be in 2008 when it’s financing unit took a bath, and G.E. became eligible to be treated as a bank under TARP.
But I suspect G.E. is mainly taking advantage of tax breaks for bringing profits into the country or part of plant assembly line that would otherwise remain abroad.
Is there a broad concensus here that the tax credits for creating wind turbines should be abolished?
But I suspect G.E. is mainly taking advantage of tax breaks for bringing profits into the country or part of plant assembly line that would otherwise remain abroad.
So you’re response to the fact that GE has avoided much of their tax burden by moving most of their profits overseas, is to assume they are getting tax breaks for moving profits to the US? What color is the sky in your world?
“Is there a broad concensus here that the tax credits for creating wind turbines should be abolished?”
Sure, on the other hand, I think it is appropriate for a region to design a mixed-energy policy. Here in SoCal we get power from about everything. Nat gas, geothermal, nuke, coal, wind.
Fault tolerance.
“Is there a broad concensus here that the tax credits for creating wind turbines should be abolished?”
Only after we get rid of all the tax credits going toward fossil fuel based energy production.
“Only after we get rid of all the tax credits going toward fossil fuel based energy production.”
Those are certainly bigger. The oil companies enjoy tremendous credits. And of course our general taxes subsidized auto/gasoline transportation.
G.E.’s effective tax rate is far below companies like Wal-Mart (30-35%) because G.E. can move production, jobs and profits between countries. G.E. can mount a credible threat that legislators have to pay attention to.
For example, a major Midwestern manufacturer decided to build engine blocks in Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor. The production initially was poor with 95% of engine blocks failing tests and having to be melted down. The testing and melting down of the engine blocks occurs in the Midwest because there is a tax credit for finishing production in the U.S. Now that the production quality has improved, they are taking advantage of additional tax credits to build a new inspection/melter facility in Texas, closer to the Mexican border.
The sky in my world is gray, because I recognize that the big companies don’t simply lobby their self interest, but work non-stop to tie public goals, like job preservation/creation to their own self interest.
Most of calls in recent years for a simpler tax system have come from republicans – not democrats. But right now this is actually something where there is a little bipartisan interest in congress. Lower the marginal rates considerably to about 20 or 25 percent but remove most of the deducations, credits etc.
Problem is, this is a game theory issue. No interest will be willing to go along with this and give up their goodies unless everyone esle also gives up their goodies too so the marginal rate cat come down. Companies would much rather lay off their enourmous tax accounting staff and just pay a lower rate. But if their goodies go away and no one elses does, then they just get hit with a higher rate and would prefer to protect their goodies.
And this doesnt mean just traditionally republican supporting interest groups. Democrats are going to have to give up all their credits and all of the corporate welfare they traditionally support. And it also means that the democrats are going to have to stop playing class warfare demagouging the proposed cut in the marginal rate even though the loop holes will disapear so income receipts remain neutral.
A lower flatter rate is more equitable, more efficient, and less distorting.
Exactly. Corporate welfare is rarely some congressman just paying off their buddy. It is almost always wrapped up in some social goal. Its a bastist and bootleggers issue. And both parties do it.
“G.E.’s effective tax rate is far below companies like Wal-Mart (30-35%) because G.E. can move production, jobs and profits between countries.”
It gets complicated. If a widget is built up from many parts “mined and manufactured” in many countries, a lot of profit gets booked before it hits US shores in either case. Who should pay more, the company that doesn’t own off-shore production, or the one that does?
Anyway, I would expect that GE has off-shore subsidiaries who book the profits without US tax, which is probably fair. As long as the widget hits US shores with fair (and not inflated) wholesale price. After all, if you inflate the offshore price, the onshore profit is hidden.
“Most of calls in recent years for a simpler tax system have come from republicans – not democrats. ”
No, no, EJ. The Dems just use different words. Ever here “eliminate corporate loopholes?” I think the Dems use that one a lot.
“If I were to look for them it would be in 2008 when it’s financing unit took a bath, and G.E. became eligible to be treated as a bank under TARP.”
Um……You’re thinking of GM, not GE.
Um……You’re thinking of GM, not GE.
No, GE has a big financing arm: GE Commercial Finance, GE Consumer Finance, GE Equipment Services, and GE Insurance. It’s one of the country’s largest lenders, and derives around half its profits from financial services.
“It’s one of the country’s largest lenders, and derives around half its profits from financial services.”
You’re right. I’m wrong.
This whole country derives half of its profits from financial services.
John,
Its true you hear that, but when was the last time you heard a democrat arging for overhauling the corporate tax code, and not just raising taxes? When democrats say get rid of loopholes, they are just talking about raising taxes because the evil corporations dont pay enough, they never argue for it in a making it simpler way or changing the actual system of taxation. For instance moving to a territorial regime like most of the rest of the world uses which would stp penalizing US companies from bringing foreign earned profits back to the US to invest.
Any corportate tax system overhaul is going to have to be revenue neutral, because otherwise the republicans won’t get on board. And even if you did just get rid of loopholes somehow without lowering the marginal rate, our corporate tax system would then be insanely uncompeditive with the rest of the world and you can kiss most remaining manufacturing jobs goodbye while eating into real wages of workers as well.
Optimistically though, there does seem to be some bipartisan interest currently in moving on this right now. It may be the one thing that comes out of this congress. Cutting the marginal rate to 20 or 25 percent while eliminating most credits and deductions in a manner that expected revenue stays neutral.
What I’m saying is, for them “eliminate loopholes” is indeed “simplify the tax code.”
Less loopholes, right?
My job is done here… chaos reigns…
Still I have to point out that JJ never answered my questions:
So… JJ… Why don’t you answer my question? Your apparent reasoning is that it is “legal” therefor they did it… And that is fine, if one is trying to get one’s clients out of jail time (take note, I NEVER said anyone should go to prison)….
BUT… that is not the question. the question is: “Is it right?” A question you avoid …. Are you going to make a stand? Are you going to defend the “rightness” of this? The “wrongness”? Or just hope it all blows over?
Truly James, I would appreciate a front page post on this matter… If for no other reason than “what did I miss?” Seriously, what is your logic?
All of you, why do you ignore the elephant in the room?
I am loathe to admit it, but Shaw and Plunk are correct that the reason GE is paying no tax this year is due to carryover losses from their financial unit. See their 2010 10-K filing, pages 31-34.
Applying prior years’ unrecognized losses to offset current year gain is not a loophole. it’s a plain-vanilla corporate tax law principle that applies to every business, no matter how large or small.
The problem with offshore income being taxed at a lower, foreign rate is not going to go away, because it’s a matter of what the U.S. constitution permits in terms of applying U.S. tax laws to entities that are formed under the laws of and operate in foreign countries. The U.S. does not have global tax jurisdiction.
To put it more simply, the problem is that legal entities like corporations and the complex nature of modern financial instruments require a complex tax code. There is no way around it.
@tom
Been swamped with work all day. Not really a post-worthy response: It’s up to elected policymakers to do what’s right. I don’t blame interests for trying to seek rent in a rent-seeking environment.
Is it “right”? No. But that’s really not GE’s responsibility.
OK Mithras, acknowledged. Though, if this argument is about effective tax rate, we need to know that, over the long term, for GE and similar.
“In the report, GAO estimated that “[t]he average U.S. effective tax rate on the domestic income of large corporations with positive domestic income in 2004 was an estimated 25.2 percent.” Moreover, in June 2007, the Treasury Department concluded: “If the revenue from tax preferences were used to lower the corporate tax rate, the rate could be lowered from 35 percent to 27 percent while producing approximately the same revenue.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004260006
The sticking point for me, from a standpoint of desiring non-crony capitalism, is that coming down from 35 to 25, there are a lot of winners (cronies) and losers.
Why American corporations always win, Chap. Umpbazillion (and why all this complaining about GE is just so much pissing into the wind for all the good it will ever do):
Suck it up, suckers.
Saw that, sam. Linked to it somewhere. For me it reinforces what I’ve been saying about favorites and tariffs. We should flatten that, like the corporate tax rate, to a uniform level. And, we should pick up just a little more tax revenue from tariff across the board. “almost-free trade.”
john p-
If you remove the financial unit losses, GE’s consolidated income tax rate is 21%.
Im reading all this and I have to agree with everybody? Why? Because we have the right to our own opinion. However if you stop and think, your in America? Why? You answer that one. The way I see it we as Americans, help other countries. More then they help the US. So if we did drop the corporate tax rates atleast till the loopholes were fixed or filled with new laws this would contribute to the deficit that the US, is in. A small loss for a big gain, because more Company’s will pay taxes in the US. and buy raising import tax this will also contribute to the deficit. If you live in the US or own a company in the US follow the tax laws to help the US not to find loopholes and short change it. Again why do you live in the USA? Stand up and fight for the US. That’s my two cents.