SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60543)11/21/2011 2:31:38 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
Buffett-Ducking Billionaires Avoid Reporting Cash Gains to IRS

Bloomberg
November 21, 2011, 12:12 PM EST
By Jesse Drucker
businessweek.com

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- When billionaire Billy Joe “Red” McCombs, co-founder of Clear Channel Communications Inc., reported a $9.8 million loss on his tax return, he failed to include about $259 million from a lucrative stock transaction.

After an audit, the Internal Revenue Service ordered him to pay $44.7 million in back taxes. McCombs, who is worth an estimated $1.4 billion and is a former owner of the Minnesota Vikings, Denver Nuggets and San Antonio Spurs sports franchises, sued the IRS, settling the case in March for about half the disputed amount.

McCombs’s fight with the IRS illustrates an overlooked facet in the debate over tax rates paid by the nation’s wealthiest. Billionaires -- from McCombs to Philip Anschutz to Ronald S. Lauder -- who derive the bulk of their wealth from stock appreciation are using strategies that reap hundreds of millions of dollars from those valuable shares in ways the IRS often doesn’t classify as taxable income, securities filings and tax court records show.

“The 800-pound gorilla is unrealized appreciation,” said Edward J. McCaffery, a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

While Warren Buffett has generated attention with his complaints that he and his fellow billionaires pay federal income taxes at a lower rate than his secretary -- about 17 percent -- the real figure is often smaller, said David S. Miller, former chair of the tax section of the New York State Bar Association and a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York.

“The problem is not that people like Warren Buffett pay tax at a 17 percent rate, it’s that they can use complex transactions not available to most Americans to get cash from their appreciated stock without paying any taxes at all,” Miller said.

Tip of Iceberg

The rate at which the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income actually paid federal income taxes --their so-called effective tax rate -- fell to about 18 percent in 2008 from almost 30 percent in 1995, IRS data show. That’s the tip of the iceberg, since much of their wealth never converts into income on a tax return, McCaffery said.

In the McCombs case, the billionaire entered into transactions known as variable prepaid forward contracts. He received about $259 million for lending an investment bank his Clear Channel shares with a promise to deliver the stock for good a few years later. The arrangement enabled McCombs to defer paying capital gains tax because he hadn’t sold his shares, lawyers for the billionaire said. The IRS deemed the transaction a sale since the bank paid McCombs cash and got the use of his stock almost immediately.

Taxes on Millionaires

Transactions like these may complicate plans by U.S. President Barack Obama to help close the federal deficit by increasing taxes on millionaires. Obama has said the tax code should contain a “Buffett Rule” to ensure that millionaires pay taxes at least at the same rate as middle-class Americans. Republicans have said they prefer lowering tax rates for businesses and the wealthy. Buffett declined to comment.

In the past two years, some of the wealthiest executives in the U.S. have used deals similar to McCombs’s to reap returns while deferring the taxes without running afoul of IRS rules, securities filings show.

Dole Food Co. Chairman David H. Murdock received about $228.6 million in 2009 against his Dole shares -- tax-free until he is scheduled to deliver shares in November 2012, a filing shows.

Starr International

Starr International Co., the investment vehicle run by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg -- forced from his position as chairman and chief executive officer of American International Group Inc. in 2005 -- utilized a prepaid forward agreement last year to receive $278.2 million from an investment bank, according to a March 2010 regulatory filing. The investment vehicle isn’t slated to deliver the AIG stock until 2013.

Lauder received $72.9 million in June as part of a variable prepaid forward sale and is scheduled to deliver the Estee Lauder Cos. shares in June 2014, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Spokespersons for Lauder, Murdock and Starr International declined to comment.

Realized Gains

While the tax treatment of these plans isn’t disclosed in the filings, “there’s no other reason to enter into such a convoluted arrangement,” said Robert Willens, an independent tax accounting analyst in New York. These arrangements can cost several million dollars in fees, according to tax planners.

Taxes on capital gains are triggered when assets like appreciated shares are sold -- a process called realization. What constitutes a realized, taxable sale is a frequent bone of contention between the IRS and the clients of tax planners.

Transactions intended to pull cash out of appreciated assets tax-free aren’t limited to stock. Boston real estate developer Arthur M. Winn exited his interest in a piece of real estate by converting his stake into a share of a partnership free of any capital gains tax, court filings show.

The IRS objected and claimed Winn and his partner should have reported a $12 million taxable gain. A U.S. Tax Court judge sided with Winn on one aspect of the deal; others were settled with the government. The details haven’t been disclosed.

Winn, who earlier this month pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions, has retired from WinnCompanies. He did not respond to messages left with his attorney and with the company.

Mark-to-Market

Miller, the former chair of the tax section of the New York State Bar Association, has proposed a so-called mark-to-market system to tax the annual appreciation in the stock holdings of the top 1/10th of 1 percent of taxpayers. That would essentially tax gains in a given year regardless of whether the shares are sold. In a 2005 article in the journal Tax Notes he estimated this approach would raise between $490 billion and $750 billion over a decade.

Borrowing against appreciated stock and real estate is a popular tax deferral strategy particularly as interest rates plummet, said Randy Beeman, a private wealth manager at The Wise Investor Group in Reston, Virginia, a unit of Robert W. Baird & Co. The interest rate on loans to some wealthy individuals has hovered around 1 percent.

Vikings Purchase

McCombs, ranked 312 on the most recent Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, made his fortune in automobiles, real estate, and then by building Clear Channel into a large radio station operator and outdoor advertising business. He is now the chairman of Xe Services LLC, the military security contractor formerly called Blackwater Worldwide.

In the late 1990s, McCombs borrowed about $300 million to finance the purchase of the National Football League’s Minnesota Vikings. By 2002, the Clear Channel shares pledged as collateral were falling in value and McCombs faced margin calls from lenders. He didn’t want to sell his shares, partly because of “a strong emotional attachment to his ownership in the company,” according to a filing by his lawyers in U.S. Tax Court.

Instead, he entered into a series of variable prepaid forward contracts, receiving about $259 million from JPMorgan Chase & Co. in exchange for an agreement to deliver his Clear Channel stock in one to three years. The transaction was structured to limit his potential losses by varying how many shares he would deliver at the end of the transaction.

He loaned those shares to JPMorgan in the interim. That allowed the New York-based bank to short the stock -- selling the borrowed shares to hedge against any decline in the price of the stock it would eventually receive from McCombs.

Lawyers said the cash received up front didn’t have to be reported as income because it wasn’t a taxable sale until McCombs turned over those shares for good.

The IRS said the transaction was a cash sale of the shares, generating taxable income of as much as $213 million.

Benefits and Burdens

Over the years, the IRS has tried to crack down on such deals. In 2006, the agency declared that including a share loan meant these types of transactions were sales, triggering an immediate income tax obligation. In McCombs’s case, his lawyers contended that the share loan was separate from the first part of the transaction, and thus didn’t transfer the so-called “benefits and burdens” of owning the stock. He settled his case for $23 million in back taxes plus interest.

In 2010, a U.S. Tax Court judge found Philip Anschutz, the entertainment, oil and media investor, owed $94 million in taxes after he used transactions similar to the ones used by McCombs. Anschutz, identified by Forbes as the 39th richest man in the U.S., is appealing the decision.

‘More Hostile’

“The IRS shifted its view and threatened a legitimate business practice and that will have a dampening effect on investment,” said a spokesman for Anschutz.

The IRS has “gotten more hostile toward these transactions over the years,” through its various technical pronouncements and litigation, said Willens, the accounting analyst. Since 2006, such transactions haven’t included the interim loan of shares to the investment bank, he said.

“It’s still desirable to defer the tax and wind up with an interest free loan from the government,” he said. “Chances are you don’t get audited and if it does get challenged the odds are good you’ll have a settlement for some fraction of the amount you saved. Who wouldn’t want that?”

--Editors: Dan Golden, Romaine Bostick

To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Drucker in New York at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Kaufman at jkaufman17@bloomberg.net



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60543)11/21/2011 4:15:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof1 Recommendation  Respond to of 103300
 
President Obama Signs Veterans Tax Credit Bill

November 21, 2011, 2:20 pm
By JAMES DAO
atwar.blogs.nytimes.com

If anyone doubted that veterans remain potent political symbols, they need look no further than Congress’s ability to set aside partisan gridlock last week and overwhelmingly enact legislation providing tax credits to businesses that hire veterans. Flanked by veterans advocates, President Obama signed the bill into law this morning.

The “VOW to Hire Heroes Act” will provide tax credits of up to $2,400 for employers who hire veterans who have been unemployed at least 4 weeks; up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been unemployed longer than 6 months; and up to $9,600 for businesses that hire veterans who have service-connected disabilities and have been unemployed longer than 6 months.

Though the unemployment rate among veterans of all ages is actually lower than the overall population, the rate is high among veterans of the current wars, standing at 12 percent, compared with about 9 percent for the population at large. The higher rate is driven largely by widespread joblessness among veterans under 25 years old, whose unemployment rate was 30 percent last month.

There has long been debate among economists over whether tax credits actually create jobs, or simply reward businesses for hiring people that they would have hired anyway. In theAtlantic.com, Daniel Indiviglio wrote recently that the tax credits might create at most a few new jobs, but that they were mainly likely to encourage the hiring of veterans over nonveterans when their qualifications are similar.

“Few employers will create new jobs from scratch just to try to bring on more veterans and obtain the credit,” Mr. Indiviglio wrote.

But Mr. Indiviglio also asserted that shifting the proportion of new hires toward veterans would be a good thing by helping to correct what he called “a grave injustice.”

“If these brave men and women chose not to fight for their country but merely remained civilians instead years ago, then many would more likely be employed today,” he said.

That sentiment seems to be shared across ideological lines on Capitol Hill and in many business circles right now.

An editorial on Bloomberg.com last week, for instance, made the case that even if the tax credits do not stimulate the economy or create new jobs, they are morally the right thing to do.

“We have no illusion that these credits are going to create lots of new jobs,” the editorial said. “But they will encourage employers to favor veterans when hiring. In a robust, growing economy, that might be an unnecessary accommodation to returning military personnel. However, after a decade of brutal warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, where fighting men and women have served grueling multiple deployments, it seems a small and entirely just recompense.”

On a White House blog, a Marine Corps veteran, Justin Constantine, wrote on Monday that the tax credits were not “an overall panacea to our veterans’ unemployment problems,” but when combined with other measures, might at least make a dent in the unemployment rate.

“Unfortunately, our youngest veterans are entering the private workforce at a very challenging time,” Mr. Constantine wrote. “Many of them are likely to be employed in industries such as construction, manufacturing and transportation, which have all struggled in the last few years. Further, many of these vets come from and return to rural parts of the country, and do not have the benefit of a college degree. Another critical issue is that there currently does not exist a truly effective and cohesive transition assistance program for them. And on top of all that, a staggering number of our returning service members suffer from behavioral health issues, including Post Traumatic Stress, but these issues are not being adequately addressed.”

Similarly, Peter Kramer, author of Listening to Prozac, said on NYTimes.com’s Room for Debate on Monday that reducing joblessness among veterans might combat their high suicide rate. The new tax credits, he says, are “a step in the right direction.”

“Study after study correlates unemployment with suicidality,” Mr. Kramer wrote. “The workplace can be stressful, but especially for the mentally vulnerable, there is no substitute for what jobs offer in the way of structure, support and meaning.”

Still, the bipartisan support for the Hire Heroes Act underscores another truism of Washington politics: Congress loves tax credits, which are an easy way to show concern for large or politically potent voting blocs.

In the Washington Post earlier this month, Steve Bell, senior director of the economic policy project of the Bipartisan Policy Center, called it “ironic” and “incongruous” that both parties would get behind new tax credits amid the emerging national debate over tax simplification.

“Tax entitlement reform will be tougher than direct spending entitlement reform,” he said.