Global Economic Intersection
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Investments
    • Invest in Amazon $250
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Best Bitcoin Accounts
    • Bitcoin Robot
      • Quantum AI
      • Bitcoin Era
      • Bitcoin Aussie System
      • Bitcoin Profit
      • Bitcoin Code
      • eKrona Cryptocurrency
      • Bitcoin Up
      • Bitcoin Prime
      • Yuan Pay Group
      • Immediate Profit
      • BitQH
      • Bitcoin Loophole
      • Crypto Boom
      • Bitcoin Treasure
      • Bitcoin Lucro
      • Bitcoin System
      • Oil Profit
      • The News Spy
      • Bitcoin Buyer
      • Bitcoin Inform
      • Immediate Edge
      • Bitcoin Evolution
      • Cryptohopper
      • Ethereum Trader
      • BitQL
      • Quantum Code
      • Bitcoin Revolution
      • British Trade Platform
      • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Reddit
    • Celebrities
      • Dr. Chris Brown Bitcoin
      • Teeka Tiwari Bitcoin
      • Russell Brand Bitcoin
      • Holly Willoughby Bitcoin
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Investments
    • Invest in Amazon $250
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Best Bitcoin Accounts
    • Bitcoin Robot
      • Quantum AI
      • Bitcoin Era
      • Bitcoin Aussie System
      • Bitcoin Profit
      • Bitcoin Code
      • eKrona Cryptocurrency
      • Bitcoin Up
      • Bitcoin Prime
      • Yuan Pay Group
      • Immediate Profit
      • BitQH
      • Bitcoin Loophole
      • Crypto Boom
      • Bitcoin Treasure
      • Bitcoin Lucro
      • Bitcoin System
      • Oil Profit
      • The News Spy
      • Bitcoin Buyer
      • Bitcoin Inform
      • Immediate Edge
      • Bitcoin Evolution
      • Cryptohopper
      • Ethereum Trader
      • BitQL
      • Quantum Code
      • Bitcoin Revolution
      • British Trade Platform
      • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Reddit
    • Celebrities
      • Dr. Chris Brown Bitcoin
      • Teeka Tiwari Bitcoin
      • Russell Brand Bitcoin
      • Holly Willoughby Bitcoin
No Result
View All Result
Global Economic Intersection
No Result
View All Result

GE’s Tax Avoidance

admin by admin
March 25, 2011
in Uncategorized
0
0
SHARES
9
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

GE logo Econintersect:  General Electric is a master at avoiding taxes.  Presumably this is all done within the law because there is no news about potential legal action by the IRS.  Naked Capitalism and The New York Times have discussed this situation in great detail in the past two days.  This situation is a poster child for the claims that U.S. corporate taxes are not serious burdens to corporate America.The 2010 annual report from the company claims the effective tax rate for 2010 was 7.4% on operating earnings.  A New York Times article says the company not only didn’t pay any income taxes, but actually got payments from the IRS:

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.

 Yves Smith has this to say at Naked Capitalism:

The New York Times reports tonight on what a great job General Electric does in tax evasion avoidance, reaping a tax credit of $3.2 billion on $5.1 billion of reported US profits. And while GE is a particularly egregious example by virtue of having the most sophisticated tax operation in the US, it illustrates a more general point. The idea that US corporations are heavily or even meaningfully taxed is a canard (and this is true at the small end of the spectrum too). While nominal tax rates may appear to take a serious bite out of corporate earnings, a myriad of loopholes and income-shifting schemes allows companies to slip the taxman’s leash.

And before some of you contend that this line of thinking is somehow anti-capitalist, consider the reaction of President Reagan when learning of GE’s skills in tax dodging:

As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

And don’t try contending that it has always been like this. From Richard Wolf in the Guardian (emphasis his):

During the Great Depression, federal income tax receipts from individuals and corporations were roughly equal. During the second world war, income tax receipts from corporations were 50% greater than from individuals. The national crises of depression and war produced successful popular demands for corporations to contribute significant portions of federal tax revenues.

US corporations resented that arrangement, and after the war, they changed it. Corporate profits financed politicians’ campaigns and lobbies to make sure that income tax receipts from individuals rose faster than those from corporations and that tax cuts were larger for corporations than for individuals. By the 1980s, individual income taxes regularly yielded four times more than taxes on corporations’ profits…

What The New York Times and Naked Capitalism have written is quite straight forward.  By contrast, the following is the tax discussion from the Operations section (p. 35-36) 2010 GE Annual Report:

INCOME TAXES have a significant effect on our net earnings.  As a global commercial enterprise, our tax rates are affected by many factors, including our global mix of earnings, the extent to which those global earnings are indefinitely reinvested outside the United States, legislation, acquisitions, dispositions and tax characteristics of our income. Our tax returns are routinely audited and settlements of issues raised in these audits sometimes affect our tax provisions.

 

GE and GECS file a consolidated U.S. federal income tax return.  This enables GE to use GECS tax deductions and credits to reduce  the tax that otherwise would have been payable by GE.

 

Our consolidated income tax rate is lower than the U.S. statutory rate primarily because of benefits from lower-taxed global operations, including the use of global funding structures, and our 2009 and 2008 decisions to indefinitely reinvest prior-year earnings outside the U.S.  There is a benefit from global operations as non-U.S. income is subject to local country tax rates that are significantly below the 35% U.S. statutory rate.  These non-U.S. earnings have been indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S. and are not subject to current U.S. income tax. The rate of tax on our indefinitely reinvested non-U.S. earnings is below the 35% U.S. statutory rate because we have significant business operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate and because GE funds the majority of its non-U.S. operations through foreign companies that are subject to low foreign taxes.

 

Income taxes (benefit) on consolidated earnings from continuing operations were 7.4% in 2010 compared with (11.5)% in 2009 and 5.6% in 2008. We expect our consolidated effective tax rate to increase in 2011 in part because we expect a high effective tax rate on the pre-tax gain on the NBCU transaction with Comcast (more than $3 billion) discussed in Note 2.

 

We expect our ability to benefit from non-U.S. income taxed at less than the U.S. rate to continue, subject to changes of U.S. or foreign law, including, as discussed in Note 14, the possible expiration of the U.S. tax law provision deferring tax on active financial services income. In addition, since this benefit depends on management’s intention to indefinitely reinvest amounts outside the U.S., our tax provision will increase to the extent we no longer indefinitely reinvest foreign earnings.

 

Our benefits from lower-taxed global operations declined to $2.8 billion in 2010 from $4.0 billion in 2009 principally because of lower earnings in our operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate, and from losses for which there was not a full tax benefit. These decreases also reflected management’s decision in 2009 to indefinitely reinvest prior year earnings outside the U.S. The benefit from lower-taxed global operations increased in 2010 by $0.4 billion due to audit resolutions.  To the extent global interest rates and non-U.S. operating income increase we would expect tax benefits to increase, subject to management’s intention to indefinitely reinvest those earnings.

 

Our benefits from lower-taxed global operations included the effect of the lower foreign tax rate on our indefinitely reinvested non-U.S. earnings which provided a tax benefit of $2.0 billion in 2010 and $3.0 billion in 2009.  The tax benefit from non-U.S. income taxed at a local country rather than the U.S. statutory tax rate is reported in the effective tax rate reconciliation in the line “Tax on global earnings including exports.”

 

Our benefits from lower-taxed global operations declined to $4.0 billion in 2009 from $5.1 billion in 2008 (including in each year a benefit from the decision to indefinitely reinvest prior year earnings outside the U.S.) principally because of lower earnings in

our operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate.  These decreases were partially offset by management’s decision in 2009 to indefinitely reinvest prior-year earnings outside the U.S. that was larger than the 2008 decision to indefinitely reinvest prior-year earnings outside the U.S.

 

Our consolidated income tax rate increased from 2009 to 2010 primarily because of an increase during 2010 of income in higher taxed jurisdictions. This decreased the relative effect of our tax benefits from lower-taxed global operations. In addition, the consolidated income tax rate increased from 2009 to 2010 due to the decrease, discussed above, in the benefit from lower-taxed global operations. These effects were partially offset by an increase in the benefit from audit resolutions, primarily a decrease in the balance of our unrecognized tax benefits from the completion of our 2003–2005 audit with the IRS.

 

Cash income taxes paid in 2010 were $2.7 billion, reflecting the effects of changes to temporary differences between the carrying amount of assets and liabilities and their tax bases.

 

Our consolidated income tax rate decreased from 2008 to 2009 primarily because of a reduction during 2009 of income in higher-taxed jurisdictions. This increased the relative effect of our tax benefits from lower-taxed global operations, including the decision, discussed below, to indefinitely reinvest prior-year earnings outside the U.S.

 

These effects were partially offset by a decrease from 2008 to 2009 in the benefit from lower-taxed earnings from global operations.  A more detailed analysis of differences between the U.S. federal statutory rate and the consolidated rate, as well as other information about our income tax provisions, is provided in Note 14.  The nature of business activities and associated income taxes differ for GE and for GECS and a separate analysis of each is presented in the paragraphs that follow.

 

Because GE tax expense does not include taxes on GECS earnings, the GE effective tax rate is best analyzed in relation to GE earnings excluding GECS.  GE pre-tax earnings from continuing operations, excluding GECS earnings from continuing operations, were $12.0 billion, $12.6 billion and $14.2 billion for 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.  On this basis, GE’s effective tax rate was 16.8% in 2010, 21.8% in 2009 and 24.2% in 2008.

 

Resolution of audit matters reduced the GE effective tax rate throughout this period.  The effects of such resolutions are included in the following captions in Note 14.

 

GE operations table 

The GE effective tax rate decreased from 2009 to 2010 primarily because of the 4.0 percentage point increase in the benefit from audit resolutions shown above.

 

The GE effective tax rate decreased from 2008 to 2009 primarily because of the 3.6 percentage point increase in the benefit from lower-taxed earnings from global operations, excluding audit resolutions. The 2008 GE rate reflects the benefit of lower taxed earnings from global operations.

 

The GECS effective income tax rate is lower than the U.S. statutory rate primarily because of benefits from lower-taxed global operations, including the use of global funding structures. There is a benefit from global operations as non-U.S. income is subject to local country tax rates that are significantly below the 35% U.S. statutory rate. These non-U.S. earnings have been indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S. and are not subject to current U.S. income tax. The rate of tax on our indefinitely reinvested non-U.S. earnings is below the 35% U.S. statutory rate because we have significant business operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate and because GECS funds the majority of its non-U.S. operations through foreign companies that are subject to low foreign taxes.

 

We expect our ability to benefit from non-U.S. income taxed at less than the U.S. rate to continue subject to changes of U.S. or foreign law, including, as discussed in Note 14, the possible expiration of the U.S. tax law provision deferring tax on active financial services income. In addition, since this benefit depends on management’s intention to indefinitely reinvest amounts outside the U.S., our tax provision will increase to the extent we no longer indefinitely reinvest foreign earnings.

 

As noted above, GE and GECS file a consolidated U.S. federal income tax return. This enables GE to use GECS tax deductions and credits to reduce the tax that otherwise would have been payable by GE. The GECS effective tax rate for each period reflects the benefit of these tax reductions in the consolidated return.

 

GE makes cash payments to GECS for these tax reductions at the time GE’s tax payments are due. The effect of GECS on the amount of the consolidated tax liability from the formation of the NBCU joint venture will be settled in cash when it otherwise would have reduced the liability of the group absent the tax on joint venture formation.

 

The GECS effective tax rate was (44.8)% in 2010, compared with 152.0% in 2009 and (41.4)% in 2008.  Comparing a tax benefit to pre-tax income resulted in a negative tax rate in 2010 and 2008.

 

Comparing a tax benefit to pre-tax loss results in the positive tax rate in 2009. The GECS tax benefit of $3.9 billion in 2009 decreased by $2.9 billion to $1.0 billion in 2010.  The lower 2010 tax benefit resulted in large part from the change from a pre-tax loss in 2009 to pre-tax income in 2010, which increased pre-tax income $4.7 billion and decreased the benefit ($1.7 billion), the non-repeat of the one-time benefit related to the 2009 decision (discussed below) to indefinitely reinvest undistributed prior year non-U.S. earnings ($0.7 billion), and a decrease in lower-taxed global operations in 2010 as compared to 2009 ($0.6 billion) caused in part by an increase in losses for which there was not a full tax benefit, including an increase in the valuation allowance associated with the deferred tax asset related to the 2008 loss on the sale of GE Money Japan ($0.2 billion). These lower benefits were partially offset by the benefit from resolution of the 2003–2005 IRS audit ($0.3 billion), which is reported in the caption “All other—net” in the effective tax rate reconciliation in Note 14.

 

The GECS tax benefit of $2.3 billion in 2008 increased by $1.6 billion to $3.9 billion in 2009.  The higher benefit resulted in large part from the change from pre-tax income in 2008 to a pre-tax loss in 2009, which decreased pre-tax income $8.2 billion and increased the benefit ($2.9 billion) and the one-time benefit related to the 2009 decision (discussed below) to indefinitely reinvest undistributed prior-year non-U.S. earnings that was larger than the 2008 decision to indefinitely reinvest prior-year non-U.S. earnings ($0.4 billion). These increases in benefits were significantly offset by a decrease in 2009 benefits from lower taxed global operations as compared to 2008 ($1.9 billion), substantially as a result of the impact in 2009 of lower interest rates and foreign exchange on the funding of our non-U.S. operations through companies that are subject to a low rate of tax.

 

During 2009, following the change in GECS external credit ratings, funding actions taken and our continued review of our operations, liquidity and funding, we determined that undistributed prior-year earnings of non-U.S. subsidiaries of GECS, on which we had previously provided deferred U.S. taxes, would be indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S.  This change increased the amount of prior-year earnings indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S. by approximately $2 billion, resulting in an income tax benefit of $0.7 billion in 2009.

 

The GECS 2008 rate reflects a reduction during 2008 of income in higher-taxed jurisdictions which increased the relative effect of tax benefits from lower-taxed global operations on the tax rate.

So now you have a description from the company of their tax payment situation.  Of course you can just go back and read what Naked Capitalism and The New York Times have to say.

Sources:  Naked Capitalism, GEV 2010 Annual Report and The New York Times

Previous Post

Survey of Consumer Finances Offers Insight Into Consumer Changes Caused by the Great Recession

Next Post

Taxing Miles Driven – Senate Exploring Funding Options

Related Posts

Unlock the Future of Fashion with NFTs and Wearables
Business

Unlock the Future of Fashion with NFTs and Wearables

by John Wanguba
May 27, 2023
Are Bitcoin Casinos Legal?
Business

Are Bitcoin Casinos Legal?

by John Wanguba
May 26, 2023
What Are Deposit Tokens?
Economics

What Are Deposit Tokens?

by John Wanguba
May 22, 2023
If The Stock Market Crashes, What Will Happen To Bitcoin?
Finance

If The Stock Market Crashes, What Will Happen To Bitcoin?

by John Wanguba
May 20, 2023
Who Will Win XRP vs SEC Case?
Econ Intersect News

Who Will Win XRP vs SEC Case?

by John Wanguba
May 20, 2023
Next Post

Taxing Miles Driven - Senate Exploring Funding Options

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Browse by Category

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Browse by Tags

adoption altcoins bank banking banks Binance Bitcoin Bitcoin adoption Bitcoin market blockchain BTC business China crypto crypto adoption cryptocurrency crypto exchange crypto market crypto regulation decentralized finance DeFi Elon Musk ETH Ethereum Europe Federal Reserve finance FTX inflation investment market analysis Metaverse NFT nonfungible tokens oil market price analysis recession regulation Russia stock market technology Tesla the UK the US Twitter

Archives

  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • August 2010
  • August 2009

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized
Global Economic Intersection

After nearly 11 years of 24/7/365 operation, Global Economic Intersection co-founders Steven Hansen and John Lounsbury are retiring. The new owner, a global media company in London, is in the process of completing the set-up of Global Economic Intersection files in their system and publishing platform. The official website ownership transfer took place on 24 August.

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Recent Posts

  • Unlock the Future of Fashion with NFTs and Wearables
  • Are Bitcoin Casinos Legal?
  • What Are Deposit Tokens?

© Copyright 2021 EconIntersect - Economic news, analysis and opinion.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Bitcoin Robot
    • Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Code
    • Quantum AI
    • eKrona Cryptocurrency
    • Bitcoin Up
    • Bitcoin Prime
    • Yuan Pay Group
    • Immediate Profit
    • BitIQ
    • Bitcoin Loophole
    • Crypto Boom
    • Bitcoin Era
    • Bitcoin Treasure
    • Bitcoin Lucro
    • Bitcoin System
    • Oil Profit
    • The News Spy
    • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Trader
  • Bitcoin Reddit

© Copyright 2021 EconIntersect - Economic news, analysis and opinion.

en English
ar Arabicbg Bulgarianda Danishnl Dutchen Englishfi Finnishfr Frenchde Germanel Greekit Italianja Japaneselv Latvianno Norwegianpl Polishpt Portuguesero Romanianes Spanishsv Swedish