Chuck, I think it's important to note that these 31 companies - as indicated by your linked article - do, in fact, show a margin of profit.

What kind of profit margin they have, however, is another story all together.

Right now, we don't know. We can't tell if those companies are screwing the system or if they are legitimately at risk of closing their doors if they had to pay taxes on top of all their other operating expenses.

I respect your opinion and I agree that tax disclosures, possibly for those who only pay the minimum tax, is a worthwhile discussion. But I think that your argument falls short of being truly compelling.

Unfortunately, the only way to make it more compelling would be to have enough information from some sort of tax disclosure information for privately held companies that would allow us more insight.

To clarify:

Tax Disclosure need not necessarily include every corporation in the state. Rather, those who pay drastically less than they appear to be paying should be disclosed.

It should be public information how much money they made, and how much was profitable income.

If corporations are potentially cheating the system, it should be investigated.

But we should not - and have no right to - punish those corporations who are in genuine need of the credits they take advantage of.

There should be no right to force corporation's to disclose their income tax returns. While I agree that its unfair, you don't invade someone's (or in this case an entity's) privacy.

How would you like your disposable income and tax paid posted for all to see. I doubt you would.

If Oregon enacted a sales tax of 7%, reduced the indiv income tax rate to 3%, and removed the $10 minimum on corporate tax, we'd be in much better shape.

Oh yeah, how smart is everyone looking now for voting to approve the kicker. That money would have come in handy. . . . .

There should be no right to force corporation's to disclose their income tax returns. While I agree that its unfair, you don't invade someone's (or in this case an entity's) privacy.

How would you like your disposable income and tax paid posted for all to see. I doubt you would.

If Oregon enacted a sales tax of 7%, reduced the indiv income tax rate to 3%, and removed the $10 minimum on corporate tax, we'd be in much better shape.

Oh yeah, how smart is everyone looking now for voting to approve the kicker. That money would have come in handy. . . . .

Every damned one of them.

tar, feather, train...

"Another, untold number of profitable corporations likely used obscure tax loopholes or overseas tax havens to avoid paying anything but the minimum, said Leachman. "

Great. Have any FACTS to support that claim?

XYZ Corp has a loss of $1,000,000 in FY07 and a profit of $1,000,000 in FY08. Are you suggesting that we do away with loss carry forwards. Because if you are, corps will radically change the way they operate here.

I don't believe that corporations should be treated as individual people or have privacy rights. Until they start paying their FAIR share they should be exposed for what many of them are... money monsters.

If corporations have to pay taxes, the terrorists will have won.

Are you suggesting that we do away with loss carry forwards. Because if you are, corps will radically change the way they operate here.

It will radically change the way many corps operate -- they'll have to start paying taxes!

It seems this debate has been percolating out there in some other states for awhile. Before saying yea or nay, I'd be curious to know if and what states have recently enacted similar laws and what, if any, any measurable compliance or enforcement benefit has been demonstrated. And if no states have enacted such law, why not?

I know that these days I'm barely able to make sense of the numbers in my own tax returns - and most people are in the same boat. Without the requisite training, experience, and access to other resources, members of the public could not understand most of the information in a corporate tax return. In the worst case scenario, I could see people making a lot of unjustified mischief.

Just putting out a list of who pays what sets up a pre-supposition that some companies aren't paying their 'fair share' even when they may be in perfect compliance with the tax laws. This is just an opportunity to demagogue some corporations (which I think is part of the agenda here...)

I'd prefer effort was spent agitating for our whole tax system to be overhauled and simplified for EVERYBODY - doing away with all these special interest tax credit provisions and other loopholes.

Corporatism is the problem. Requiring corporations to disclose their tax payments is a bandaid.

End corporate personhood. Change the definition of a corporation to what it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Break up all those corporations that are "too big to fail".

Great alarmist rant!

When companies lose money - i.e. have no profit, they are permitted to carry forward these losses to offset future profits. After the losses have been offset, then taxes are paid on subsequent profit.

What's wrong with that?

Individuals have a similar benefit when they are able to offset capital gains with capital losses. Whether via stocks and bonds, or real estate investments.

The tone of this article is that corporations are weasels because they are gaming the system by using losses to offset profit.

There is nothing great about a company losing money. To be penalized for having losses and having no recourse to recover from those losses, will surely drive businesses away. Heck, years of losses will surely shut the business down.

By the way, the report does show that some companies did pay their fair share of taxes; more than $10 in fact. Probably because they have years of profits behind them.

Next thing you know, people will want to punish those who have taken a loss after their house sells for below what they paid, or for their casualty losses.

Sheesh!

Wrong Question. Your headline to this post, "Which corporations are playing us for fools?" strongly implies that corporations are playing "us" for fools.

Why not an honest headline that indicates what you really want to discuss? For example, "Adopt a Corporate Tax Disclosure Law." Then you could have the opportunity to debate that question with your readers. This headline makes me believe you just want to bait people to be corporation haters.

In my opinion, you want us all to be distracted by the 'evil corporations' so we won't see that you want to take the right of privacy from legal entities. If that is what you want, why not say so up front and give arguments why it should be done.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

So if we don't have tax disclosure how do you know that they only paid $10?

Someone asked about why are we fools?

Steve has answered the question about who (Oregonians) is being played for fools, and for what:

1.Can't change a $10 minimum tax because of 3/5th rule

1. Can't get rid of the kicker because of the 3/5th rule

2. Generous depreciation rules that can't get changed because of the 3/5th rule

And there are more may more buried in the tax code, but most of us fools don't even know about it as the state services slowly drip, drip away and the lobbyists rub their hands in their happy proceeds.

I don't believe that corporations should be treated as individual people or have privacy rights.

Then forget about the idea of being able to sue a corporation. Or get taxes from them, for that matter. Who/what would you tax?

There should be no right to force corporation's to disclose their income tax returns. While I agree that its unfair, you don't invade someone's (or in this case an entity's) privacy.

Corporations are artificial entities, created under the law and operating under a charter. They need to be registered with the government before they even exist. Traditionally (pre-industrial revolution) they could only be chartered by the government to accomplish some kind of public purpose, like building a bridge or running foreign trade.

They aren't natural persons with natural rights. They have only the "rights" given to them by the legislature. There's no reason whatsoever that they should be given the same privacy rights as individuals. (Yes, the Supreme Court ruled corporations should by treated as natural persons under the U.S. Constitution, but the actual constitutional basis for that ruling is non-existent. Hopefully, someday a state will challenge it.)

Chuck says: alcatross wants context. Studies by Citizens for Tax Justice have shown disparities in industries (see study cited here for example) with federal taxes and nationally with state taxes (see this and the underlying study)

Chuck, these 'studies' do not at all address the question I asked. I asked was if there was any data on states that have recently enacted the kind of tax disclosure law you're advocating here that demonstrates any measurable compliance or enforcement benefit. My guess is there isn't...

Your post implies either some corporations are guilty of tax evasion or some weird belief they should pay more taxes than they're legally required to. We all already know the tax code is hopelessly complex and shot through full of loopholes that big businesses and the wealthy can use to their advantage. If you're trying to convince federal and state authorities of the need for tax reform (which I support, BTW), the necessary data seems to already be out there. The adversarial tone of your post looks more like a plea from anti-corporation busy-bodies for the opportunity to go sifting through tax returns on witch-hunts trying to make headlines. It's a dangerous slope...

If you want to audit state corporate income tax returns, why not apply for a job with the Oregon Dept of Revenue?

Chuck, I made the accusation that you, "... just want to bait people to be corporation haters." You replied, "To the contrary, I want disclosure, so I can honor the good corporate taxpayers."
I have read both your original post and the article which you linked to (that was published by your organization). In neither one do I find any mention or even the hint that you want to honor anyone or any corporation.
I still see your purpose as trying to line up people who will agree with you that corporations must give up their freedom of privacy.
A law intended to allow violating privacy and conducting witch hunts as alcatross suggests is your aim here is just a diversion, a chance to point fingers of blame at corporations. Paul's comments about who we elect and the need for campaign finance reform seem more to the point.

Chuck replied, "To the contrary, I want disclosure, so I can honor the good corporate taxpayers."

Gee whiz... you mean simple compliance with Oregon's tax laws as determined by the OR Dept of Revenue won't be enough anymore? We now also have 'good' (and then by definition 'bad') corporate taxpayers? (also maybe 'ok' taxpayers?) And Chuck and the OCPP want to vest themselves with the authority to define the standard for what determines a 'good' corporate taxpayer? It's amazing sometimes the things I learn here.

Tom Vail says I still see your purpose as trying to line up people who will agree with you that corporations must give up their freedom of privacy.

You may be right, Tom. I was trending in that direction with my 'slippery slope' comment but admit I hadn't jumped that far ahead.

I will agree any meaningful tax reform is a pipe dream unless there are changes to the campaign finance laws and lobbying rules. Some consideration of term limits might also be helpful.

Chuck, I just want to say thank you for making this case, and for working so hard day after day to give voice to common-sense good government principles. Looking over these comments, all the snark and nitpicking, it is just so frustrating and depressing. I find it very impressive that anyone could have the patience to continue arguing. Oregon is lucky to have you.

First, I agree that the $10 minimum should be changed. But all of us who re-elected the people who were lobbied by the corps are just playing fools ourselved when we re-elect the idiots.

Also Intel (since that was used above) did pay lots more than most people in property tax. you know that other basis of the tax structure... It's hard to know what % of Intel's income was earned in Oregon.

http://www.co.washington.or.us/cgi/intelsip.pl

Chuck, If what I have said is taken as "all the snark and nitpicking" (per Michael B), I apologize. I don't disagree that organizations like yours can be very helpful to the debate. My problem is that when the debate is dishonest, IMO, it discredits the argument and the organization.

So...

I'll provide a scenario where no tax should be paid: - new business, owner supplied all startup capital - in startup phase; first few years of operation - has employees who are paid competitive salary and are provided with benefits - no tax subsidies, no local, state, or federal grants or incentives - rents or leases space - has normal travel and operating expenses - equipment is just the normal office equipment and furniture - I'm sure there are other typical expenses an operating business pays

Operates for the first few years with an operating loss.

Explain to me why this corporation should have to pay a minimum income tax for those years. The eventual goal of the business is surely to be profitable at some point. And what should the basis for a minimum tax be? Number of employees? Location? Revenue received(if any)? Payroll size?

By the way, the employees pay income and payroll taxes on their salaries, and the employer pays FICA as well as other local fees required operating a business.

And the landlord pays the property tax.

For extra credit, pursue further with a virtual business that has no physical location other than a P.O. Box.

I'm still trying to get my head around paying income taxes when there is no income, and the business is not jumping thru the hoops of depreciation and other loopholes mentions.

I am sure in my naivete, I am forgetting something obvious.

I am not trying to trivialize the issue, but rather really trying to understand better why a minimum tax should be paid in scenarios that don't have loopholes.

Mike

OK, Mike, if you will accept that businesses (Enron in the old days, other established businesses now) agree to the corporate tax disclosure idea so they aren't using clever accountants to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

LT

What Enron did was criminal and the accounting firm who did it, Arthur Anderson, was given the proverbial "death penalty" by the government.

Also, I keep hearing about this concept of "fair share." Could you please point me to where I can find the definition of this term.

You see, my definition of "fair share" applies to all tax payers. I believe that we "are all in this together" and that if you want to institute a min. tax on businesses, you should also have one for individuals. Now, that would be "fair."