What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Walgreens Wait (1 Viewer)

  • Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
    Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).

 
  • The company said it considered the move, but decided that it would not be approved by the Internal Revenue Service.
  • Walgreens also said it was mindful of the public reaction to moving overseas, as well as the fact that a major portion of its revenue is derived from government-funded reimbursement programs.
  • But initial reaction from investors was not pretty -- shares fell nearly 10% in premarket trading.
Need somebody to hold your beer, CEO?

 
From today's BNA Daily Tax Reports (no link provided since you have to be a subscriber)

Corporate Inversions
Political, Investor Pressure Over Inversions
Prompts Walgreen to Keep U.S. Headquarters


By Cynthia Koons and Makiko Kitamura

Aug. 6 — Walgreen Co., the biggest U.S. drugstore chain, said it plans to buy all of Alliance Boots for about $15.3 billion and won't use the deal to move its tax address abroad.

Walgreen will remain based near Chicago. The company had previously considered moving its headquarters as a way to lower the rate it pays the U.S. government. The U.S. pharmacy chain has come under political pressure not to do a so-called tax inversion as other health companies, including drugmakers AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc., struck or attempted deals to cut their own rates and leave the U.S.

“A potential tax inversion has become a hot button topic in recent weeks as the company and a handful of outspoken investors have weighed the option,” said Ross Muken, an analyst with ISI Group LLC, in a note to clients before the deal was announced. Moving overseas could have saved Walgreen at least $4 billion in taxes over five years, he said.

Political Pressure

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a July 22 letter to Walgreen Chief Executive Officer Gregory Wasson that should the company decide to go through with a tax inversion, management would be “turning your backs on the very people that have allowed Walgreen's to thrive and prosper.”

Lawmakers in both major U.S. political parties have examined ways to stop the departures. The U.S. Treasury Department said Aug. 5 it is examining whether it has the authority to stop companies moving overseas while it waits on Congress to pass comprehensive tax reform.

“We undertook an extensive and rigorous analysis with a team of leading experts to determine the most optimal—and sustainable—course of action,” Wasson said in the statement. “We could not arrive at a structure that provided the company and our board with the requisite level of confidence that a transaction of this significance would need to withstand extensive IRS review and scrutiny.” (emphasis added)

Early Option

As a result, the company decided it wasn't in the best interest of its investors to attempt to set up its tax address outside the U.S., Wasson said. (emphasis added again)

Walgreen took a 45 percent stake in Alliance Boots for $6.7 billion in 2012 in an effort to build a global pharmacy chain. Walgreen had the option to gain full control of the chain within three years of that deal. The agreement announced Aug. 6 revised the original accord to enable Walgreen to make the purchase between Aug. 5 and Feb. 5.

At 35 percent, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world and the U.S. is one of few countries that make a company pay that rate on all the global income it brings home.
 
It's on the President and the Senate to stop this, and not this instance, the trend.

Seriously, work to change the tax code, or more and more companies will do this. The president and Senate have the power to do so.

It will soon become competitive disadvantage for US-based businesses not to pursue tax inversion or HQ relocation abroad.
I couldn't agree more. I consider stuff like this to be treason. Its systematic abuse and destruction of this country until nothing but an empty husk remains.

Want to do business here? Well then you contribute your fair share instead of just feasting on the economy like locusts.
??

welcome to globalization? So do you feel the same way about restricting US companies selling their goods in other countries? Or does every biz need to have a headquarters only in the country they are selling product in?

And don't get me wrong...this really sucks for the US worker. I agree, more needs to be done to not only keep business' here, but also make it attractive for overseas companies and new businesses to grow in this country. But the Fed restricting their ability to serve the public through prescriptions is NOT the answer, it will only give the gov't power to pick and choose who they allow or deny free enterprise rights to.

But overall, the average american wouldn't even know and even with a little bad press, they will continue to do fine, their shareholders will be happy and you'll be able to get batteries at 3am, you know b/c thats what we need.
Time for a VAT tax. Then when you do an inversion you are now a foreign company and everything you do is taxed accordingly. Corporations in this country already pay less then those in other G8 nations. This is just outright greed. I agree with Mark Cuban. Divest from these folks.
The facts disagree with you

http://www.uhy.com/wp-content/uploads/G8.jpg

 
:lmao: from today's BNA Daily Tax Report...

Corporate Inversions
Major Obama Donors Connected to Merger
Models President Has Been Trying to Block


By Richard Rubin and Annie Linskey

Aug. 13 — President Barack Obama has been bashing companies that pursue offshore mergers to reduce taxes. He hasn't talked about the people behind the deals—some of whom are his biggest donors.

Executives, advisers and directors involved in some of the tax-cutting transactions include Blair Effron, an investment banker who hosted a fundraiser for Obama in May at his two-level, 9,000-square-foot apartment on Manhattan's Upper East Side.

Others are Jim Rogers, co-chairman of the host committee for the 2012 Democratic National Convention; Roger Altman, a former senior Treasury Department official who raised at least $200,000 for Obama's re-election campaign; and Shantanu Narayen, who sits on the president's management advisory board.

The administration's connections to more than 20 donors associated with the transactions are causing tensions for the president as he urges Congress to act against the deals and prods the Treasury Department for short-term steps to curb them. The president's tough talk also may become a liability as Democrats seek corporate America's cash this year as they try to preserve their majority in the Senate.

‘Sufficiently Misleading.’

“It's populist rhetoric,” said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who advises clients at Carmen Group Inc., a Washington consulting and lobbying firm. “And at some point it's sufficiently misleading that it draws the attention away from the difficulties involved with an agreement to lower the corporate tax rates—that's not an easy thing to do.”

White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said the president won't return donations from supporters who have made money setting up the tax deals he has labeled as wrong.

“We are not privy to the details and have no role in any individual company's plans,” Schultz said at a briefing on Martha's Vineyard, where the president is vacationing. “But what the president is focused on is stopping the problem.”

He said there was no double standard and that he would “understand the skepticism more if we weren't doing something to tackle the problem.”

It's to Obama's credit that he's willing to criticize his donors, said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a Washington-based group that describes itself as a “countervailing force” to companies.

‘Narrow Band.’

“Campaign finance primarily comes from a very narrow band of very rich people,” he said. “It's less of a problem of presidential hypocrisy than it is a problem of the state of the campaign-spending and campaign-donor world.”

Obama started criticizing the deals known as corporate inversions in July, after Medtronic Inc. and AbbVie Inc. announced the two largest such deals in U.S. history. Administration officials had started to worry that a wave of companies could follow the economic incentive.

In inversions, U.S.-based companies merge with a smaller foreign business and take a non-U.S. address for tax purposes, typically without moving their operations or executives. The deals, which are legal, let companies deploy cash overseas without paying U.S. taxes and make it is easier for them to reduce U.S. taxes on income earned in the country.

Obama said the deals are a “threat” to the U.S. and approvingly quoted others who called the companies involved “corporate deserters,” using the kind of language one doesn't usually employ to describe supporters.

‘Stashing Offshore.’

“It sticks you with the tab to make up for what they're stashing offshore through their evasive tax policies,” Obama said in Los Angeles July 24. The president also said the deals involve just a few big corporations and that the “vast majority of American businesses play by the rules.”

A Bloomberg News review of publicly available information identified the executives, directors and advisers involved in the recent wave of transactions. The tally doesn't include the contributors at senior levels of such companies as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. that have advised companies on the mergers.

Effron is co-founder of Centerview Partners LLC, a New York investment firm. Centerview advised Abbott Laboratories, which is selling some of its non-U.S. businesses to Mylan Inc. in a deal that will let Mylan put its tax home in the Netherlands.

Centerview also advised AstraZeneca Plc as it rejected multiple offers from Pfizer Inc. that would have led Pfizer to take a U.K. address.

Effron was among Obama's top campaign-donation bundlers, raising more than $500,000 and attending a 2011 state dinner—complete with Texas Wagyu beef and a performance by singer Janelle Monae—in honor of Lee Myung-bak, then-president of South Korea.

‘Gorgeous Home.’

Most recently, on May 14, Effron opened up what Obama called a “gorgeous home” for an event that yielded up to $32,400 per person for Senate Democrats.

Republicans need a net gain of six seats to take control of the 100-member Senate. Analysts rate Democrats the underdogs in maintaining three seats they hold—in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia—and the party is defending several others rated as tossups.

The “whole crew” organizing the event, Obama said, were “early investors and they've been with me through thick and thin.”
Effron declined to comment.

2012 Convention

Rogers helped finance the 2012 convention in Charlotte, N.C., as chairman and chief executive officer of Duke Energy Corp. He spoke at the convention the same day that Obama accepted the party's nomination, where he called for investments in nuclear, wind and solar energy.

Under Rogers’ leadership, the utility company with its headquarters seven blocks from the convention site forgave a $10 million loan it made for the event, claiming it as a business expense.

The president and first lady Michelle Obama recognized Rogers at events in 2012, and he attended a 2011 state dinner in honor of German Chancellor Angela Merkel at which James Taylor performed.

Rogers is a director of Applied Materials Inc., which has a pending inversion transaction with Tokyo Electron Ltd. that will place the combined company in the Netherlands.

Rogers, who was replaced as Duke's chief executive officer in 2013, didn't respond to a phone call or an e-mail seeking comment.
Altman is the founder and executive chairman of Evercore Partners, a New York investment firm that advised Shire Plc, which has a pending inversion deal with AbbVie.

Inversions ‘Understandable.’

Altman was deputy Treasury secretary in President Bill Clinton's administration and was a bundler for Obama. He said on July 31 that it was “understandable” why companies were considering inversions.

“It's a shame that the differential between U.S. corporate tax rates and comparable global partner tax rates is so wide that a lot of corporations feel impelled to redomicile,” he said on Bloomberg Television.

Asked whether he supports Obama's proposals, Altman said, “We just need to get on with tax reform.” Through a spokesman, he declined to comment for this story.

Narayen is the chief executive officer of Adobe Systems Inc. and a director of Pfizer, which earlier this year proposed the largest inversion in history.

In 2012, he gave $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,500 to Obama and more than $6,000 to other Democratic committees and candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that tracks money in politics. He attended Obama's first state dinner in 2009, for Manmohan Singh, then-prime minister of India.

Advisory Board

Narayen came to a 2010 White House forum on modernizing government and joined Obama's management advisory board. Through a spokeswoman, he declined to comment for this story.

Many of the executives involved in inversions donate frequently to Republicans, including Alexander Cutler, the CEO of Eaton Corp., Miles White, the CEO of Abbott, and Ian Read, the CEO of Pfizer.

Obama is backing legislation proposed in Congress to make it more difficult to complete the deals.

The measure hasn't advanced in Congress. Republicans are opposed and crucial Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, including Mark Warner of Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, haven't endorsed the legislation.

In part because of that deadlock, Obama said Aug. 6 that he wants the Treasury Department to act “as quickly as possible” on rules that would make inversions less attractive.

Though the president's attention to inversions is recent, the direction of his policy isn't a surprise. He campaigned twice on ending tax breaks that he says ship jobs overseas.

Delphi Corp

The administration included an anti-inversions proposal in its budget for the first time this year. In 2009, by contrast, as part of its bailout of the auto industry, the Treasury Department helped the Michigan parts supplier Delphi Corp. emerge from bankruptcy as a U.K. company.

The Internal Revenue Service is now challenging Delphi's claim to be a U.K. company for tax purposes.

The most visible Democratic executive engaged in an inversion deal is Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan and daughter of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Bresch gave $1,000 to Obama in 2008, plus $10,000 to the West Virginia state Democratic Party in 2010.
One of Obama's biggest bundlers, Sally Susman, is an executive vice president at Pfizer who gave more than $89,000 to Democrats in 2011 and 2012 combined.

Franken, Warren

Robert Pozen, a director of Minneapolis-based Medtronic who teaches at Harvard Business School, donated to Obama in 2008 and regularly gives to Democrats, including Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). In an e-mail, Pozen declined to comment.

In the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, he wrote that the U.S. tax code gives companies a “perverse incentive” to move operations and workers out of the country. Pozen called for a 17 percent “global competitiveness tax” on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

Then there's Glenn Tilton. The former CEO of UAL Corp. and JPMorgan executive is a director of both AbbVie and Abbott. Tilton, who declined to comment, donated to politicians in both parties—including $5,000 to Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney, in the 2012 presidential race.

He received an administration post that now looks awkward for a president concerned about shipping the tax base out of the U.S.—a spot on Obama's Export Council.
 
These corporate inversions have been all over the WSJ for the last several months. It's like buying up a foreign subsidiary to establish base of operations in a tax-friendly country is now all the rage. Technically, the directors and officers have a duty to maximize shareholder value and staying based in the U.S. and subject to some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, would seem to be a breach of fiduciary duty when they could pull off one of these inversions and only have U.S. tax on U.S.-source income. 0bama and Congress are all beating the drum, now, saying how all this has to stop and so forth, but they're going to have one helluva uphill battle trying to do that AND maintain the high corporate taxes, because it is the high U.S. taxes that are driving these inversions.
Because making the "rich pay their fair share" is more important than actually generating revenue for the treasury.
Bingo. Neither side has any real interest in changing the status quo, and I have no doubt that dems are privately hoping for more of these so they can kick and scream about it publicly and raise more campaign dollars.

There is no legitimate reason why the tax code hasn't been majorly overhauled other than political tomfoolery. That's what's disgusting here.
/thread, put up (overhaul the IRC) or shut up.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top