PDA

View Full Version : Taxpayers on the Hook for BP's Gulf Spill



nAz
05-31-2011, 04:14 PM
I hope Nelson's bill goes through quickly,i think it will get full support from both partys.
I'd hate to see BP or any other company get away with this.

The oil hearings last week revealed that BP (BP: 46.24, +0.70, +1.54%) is moving to cut its tax bill by about $11.8 billion by writing off the costs of its devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an ordinary business expense, a spill which wreaked havoc on the Gulf, killed wild life and damaged the local economy.
BP booked $11.8 billion in tax savings in its fourth quarter as it partly wrote off the costs for the clean-up, the $20 billion victim compensation fund, and legal expenses.
Without the move, BP’s bottom line would have been deep in the red. BP says it has already taken a $40.9 billion total pre-tax charge to its income in 2010.
The oil company did not return calls or e-mail requests for comment.
Taxpayers are on the hook for about 29% of BP's overall costs, says Senate Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida, who has introduced a bill that would shut down deductions for legal, clean-up and other costs associated with oil spills in U.S. territorial waters as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses.

The legislation would apply to most of BP's expenses, Nelson has said.
Nelson says this bill was necessary, especially after BP itself vowed to not deduct such costs as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses. And especially after Boeing (BA: 78.03, +1.04, +1.35%) and Goldman Sachs (GS: 140.73, +2.07, +1.49%) didn't deduct similar costs after they got in trouble with the government.
All this unfolded at a testy hearing last Thursday of the Senate Finance Committee, where oil executives defended their lucrative profits and attempted to explain away rising gas prices.
Sen. Nelson began a line of questioning with BP America chairman and president Lamar McKay on whether the CEO thought it was justifiable that BP was attempting to take a tax write-off for costs associated with the spill.
In BP’s fourth quarter 2010 SEC filing. the company indicated it planned to generate $11.8 billion in tax savings as a result of the oil spill.
“Surely, the Gulf oil spill was the result of wrongdoing, and yet you want to claim that as a tax credit," Sen. Nelson said at the hearing. BP “may be entitled to this under the law, but that doesn't make it right."
But McKay said the company was not treating the expense deductions as a tax credit, and said the write-offs were justified as "standard business expenses."
However, Nelson said: "BP agreed to pick up the entire tab for cleaning the mess up the Gulf. Shifting these costs back to the taxpayer shouldn't be allowed."
Sen. Nelson also noted that in unrelated cases involving company wrongdoing Boeing and Goldman Sachs had voluntarily agreed not to deduct such things as legal expenses. Sen. Nelson said at the hearing that “ should consider changing the law to follow the example set by Boeing and Goldman Sachs.”
Boeing agreed to pay a $615 million fine to the U.S. government in 2006 to end a three-year federal investigation into its Pentagon contracting scandals.
The fine was the largest financial penalty ever slapped on a military contractor.
The Department of Justice had alleged that Boeing illegally obtained thousands of pages of confidential and proprietary documents from corporate rival Lockheed Martin Corp. to help it win Defense Department contracts to make rockets and other things. Justice had also alleged that Boeing illegally recruited a top Air Force procurement officer while she was simultaneously sanctioning contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing.
And last year, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay $550 million to settle a civil suit filed against it by the Securities and Exchange Commission which alleged that the Wall Street investment bank had misled investors in touting subprime mortgage investments, while not disclosing it let John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, pick the assets for the same security which Paulson planned to bet against, or "short."
The fine was the largest in the history of the SEC, and came within a day of Congressional passage of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill.

eg8r
05-31-2011, 06:35 PM
On its face the bill sounds like a great idea. The problem with great ideas is when politicians start screwing them up.

eg8r

LWW
05-31-2011, 06:51 PM
Why shouldn't they be able to write it off?

nAz
05-31-2011, 10:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On its face the bill sounds like a great idea. The problem with great ideas is when politicians start screwing them up.

eg8r </div></div>

Yeah you are right lets see how this bill gets mutated

nAz
05-31-2011, 10:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why shouldn't they be able to write it off? </div></div>

Why should day?
If you think it's ok for Tax payers to pick up 29% of the clean up cost, why dont you send BT 29% of your next pay check. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


wait you know your right why shouldn't they write it off, Congress is responsible for BP's negligence they let them drill with out enough safe guards to prevent this from happing in the first place.

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why shouldn't they be able to write it off? </div></div>

Why should <s>day</s>[they]?</div></div>

1 - Because it's within the law.

2 - We are a republic that holds all equal under the law.

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope Nelson's bill goes through quickly,i think it will get full support from both partys.
I'd hate to see BP or any other company get away with this.

The oil hearings last week revealed that BP (BP: 46.24, +0.70, +1.54%) is moving to cut its tax bill by about $11.8 billion by writing off the costs of its devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an ordinary business expense, a spill which wreaked havoc on the Gulf, killed wild life and damaged the local economy.
BP booked $11.8 billion in tax savings in its fourth quarter as it partly wrote off the costs for the clean-up, the $20 billion victim compensation fund, and legal expenses.
Without the move, BP’s bottom line would have been deep in the red. BP says it has already taken a $40.9 billion total pre-tax charge to its income in 2010.
The oil company did not return calls or e-mail requests for comment.
Taxpayers are on the hook for about 29% of BP's overall costs, says Senate Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida, who has introduced a bill that would shut down deductions for legal, clean-up and other costs associated with oil spills in U.S. territorial waters as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses.

The legislation would apply to most of BP's expenses, Nelson has said.
Nelson says this bill was necessary, especially after BP itself vowed to not deduct such costs as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses. And especially after Boeing (BA: 78.03, +1.04, +1.35%) and Goldman Sachs (GS: 140.73, +2.07, +1.49%) didn't deduct similar costs after they got in trouble with the government.
All this unfolded at a testy hearing last Thursday of the Senate Finance Committee, where oil executives defended their lucrative profits and attempted to explain away rising gas prices.
Sen. Nelson began a line of questioning with BP America chairman and president Lamar McKay on whether the CEO thought it was justifiable that BP was attempting to take a tax write-off for costs associated with the spill.
In BP’s fourth quarter 2010 SEC filing. the company indicated it planned to generate $11.8 billion in tax savings as a result of the oil spill.
“Surely, the Gulf oil spill was the result of wrongdoing, and yet you want to claim that as a tax credit," Sen. Nelson said at the hearing. BP “may be entitled to this under the law, but that doesn't make it right."
But McKay said the company was not treating the expense deductions as a tax credit, and said the write-offs were justified as "standard business expenses."
However, Nelson said: "BP agreed to pick up the entire tab for cleaning the mess up the Gulf. Shifting these costs back to the taxpayer shouldn't be allowed."
Sen. Nelson also noted that in unrelated cases involving company wrongdoing Boeing and Goldman Sachs had voluntarily agreed not to deduct such things as legal expenses. Sen. Nelson said at the hearing that “ should consider changing the law to follow the example set by Boeing and Goldman Sachs.”
Boeing agreed to pay a $615 million fine to the U.S. government in 2006 to end a three-year federal investigation into its Pentagon contracting scandals.
The fine was the largest financial penalty ever slapped on a military contractor.
The Department of Justice had alleged that Boeing illegally obtained thousands of pages of confidential and proprietary documents from corporate rival Lockheed Martin Corp. to help it win Defense Department contracts to make rockets and other things. Justice had also alleged that Boeing illegally recruited a top Air Force procurement officer while she was simultaneously sanctioning contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing.
And last year, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay $550 million to settle a civil suit filed against it by the Securities and Exchange Commission which alleged that the Wall Street investment bank had misled investors in touting subprime mortgage investments, while not disclosing it let John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, pick the assets for the same security which Paulson planned to bet against, or "short."
The fine was the largest in the history of the SEC, and came within a day of Congressional passage of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill.
</div></div>

Republican Obstructionism, just like the late nineties, when Brooksley Born tried to reason with REPIGLICAN Greenspan, on the inherent threat of Derivatives.


Show me a crook, and I'll show you how he was protected by Repiglican Policies.

Those Oil CEO's turned my stomach!!! So did the Repiglicans!!!!

Crooks, every single one. Took me back to the days when Boehner was protecting the Tobacco Industry!!!

G.

pooltchr
06-01-2011, 08:27 AM
You are actually using rational thinking for a change. Congratulations!

If you think companies are taking advantage of our laws to save money, you don't beat up on the company...you work to fix the law!


Steve

eg8r
06-01-2011, 08:41 AM
It is such a sad gaurantee.

eg8r

eg8r
06-01-2011, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Because it's within the law.
</div></div>Hello, that is the point of this thread. That is why they are trying to change the law.

I also believe Naz is asking the question as a concerned taxpayer and as a US taxpayer it is a great question to ask. Why should the negligence of that company be paid for by my hard work. The senator hears these cries and understands the hardships and decides to try and change the law. Good for him.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Because it's within the law.
</div></div>Hello, that is the point of this thread. That is whey they are trying to change the law.

I also believe Naz is asking the question as a concerned taxpayer and as a US taxpayer it is a great question to ask. Why should the negligence of that company be paid for by my hard work. The senator hears these cries and understands the hardships and decides to try and change the law. Good for him.

eg8r </div></div>

And who do you think is voting to obstruct that law????
Who has been protecting, and apologizing to BP since the spill?

Repiglicans, that's who!
G.

eg8r
06-01-2011, 09:27 AM
I don't care. I am hoping, like Naz, that this law gets put in place and the hardship is not placed on US taxpayers.

eg8r

LWW
06-01-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Because it's within the law.
</div></div>Hello, that is the point of this thread. That is why they are trying to change the law.

I also believe Naz is asking the question as a concerned taxpayer and as a US taxpayer it is a great question to ask. Why should the negligence of that company be paid for by my hard work. The senator hears these cries and understands the hardships and decides to try and change the law. Good for him.

eg8r </div></div>

His question was why should they be allowed to deduct it. D'UH!Follow up question ... how, while maintaining intellectual and moral integrity, do you arbitrarily change the tax code after the fact to punish one company?

LWW
06-01-2011, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't care. I am hoping, like Naz, that this law gets put in place and the hardship is not placed on US taxpayers.

eg8r </div></div>

How will this remove the hardship from US taxpayers?

BP is the big dog in the US oil market ... this bill will merely force BP to raise pump prices which will allow others to follow suit.

In reality, this will result in a slight increase in revenue which will rapidly be squandered by the state.

LWW
06-01-2011, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Because it's within the law.
</div></div>Hello, that is the point of this thread. That is whey they are trying to change the law.

I also believe Naz is asking the question as a concerned taxpayer and as a US taxpayer it is a great question to ask. Why should the negligence of that company be paid for by my hard work. The senator hears these cries and understands the hardships and decides to try and change the law. Good for him.

eg8r </div></div>

And who do you think is voting to obstruct that law????

G. </div></div>

Can you think at all?

The law allows the deduction. It is the left attempting to obstruct the law.

eg8r
06-01-2011, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His question was why should they be allowed to deduct it. </div></div>Exactly and DUH that is the point of this thread. Why should we allow that company to make US taxpayers cover their mistakes. The answer is WE SHOULDN'T!!! Which is why they are trying to get the law changed so that it cannot happen.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how, while maintaining intellectual and moral integrity, do you arbitrarily change the tax code after the fact to punish one company? </div></div>Change has to start somewhere and now is as good a time as any. Also it will not affect just one company instead it will affect all companies that perform the same way. If you make a mistake and it causes you to lose money, well then that should be the risk of doing business. I think there is a good chance that should this get passed it will cause other companies to take a second look at the policy/procendures/safegaurds in place and make sure it does not happen again.

Modifications to law usually happen after something negative has happened, plain and simple.

eg8r

eg8r
06-01-2011, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How will this remove the hardship from US taxpayers?
</div></div>Instead of US taxpayers paying the billions of dollars BP will have to. As far as them possibly raising prices to cover the cost, let's see how well that works. There is too much competition for them to try that and in order to get it to happen there would need to be collusion amongst their competitors to agree to the rate hike. If the BP station is $.05 more expensive than the Amoco next door who do you think is busy?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In reality, this will result in a slight increase in revenue which will rapidly be squandered by the state. </div></div>As is the result of all tazes brought in. Why should this be any different. Instead of letting the state squander the money we should allow BP? Nope, no way no how. I hope Nelson can pull this off.

eg8r

LWW
06-01-2011, 11:59 PM
So if you have an uninsured loss you shouldn't be able to deduct it?

This will be a punishment to every American and not isolated to BP in the end.

Qtec
06-02-2011, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why shouldn't they be able to write it off? </div></div>


Should be obvious even to you.

Q

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 07:14 AM
How much of that initial slush fund that the administration extorted from BP has actually found it's way to the people who suffered financial setbacks caused by the spill?

How much more will it take to pay for ALL the damage that was done?

When BP actually pays all the bills, if they end up suffering a loss, so be it. At that point, if they claim that loss, I really don't have a problem with it. But before they claim any loss at all, they need to have the bill paid in full!

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't care. I am hoping, like Naz, that this law gets put in place and the hardship is not placed on US taxpayers.

eg8r </div></div>

Yep, so do I, AND too bad you don't watch your Government in action, in order to register in your brain, which party is by far most responsible for these Grand Oil Party, protections of the corrupt Oil Industry, and has a grand history of punishing us, the tax payers, on every level, for what they are doing to all of us, on many levels.

G.

eg8r
06-02-2011, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if you have an uninsured loss you shouldn't be able to deduct it?
</div></div>Yes, if my uninsured loss of $12 billion (even though it was much higher) caused huge hardships on the ocean and the economy then it should not be deductible.

Now, we need to point out that you are comparing an individual and a corporation and we both know they are not the same thing.

eg8r

eg8r
06-02-2011, 08:54 AM
I am not interested in your partisan views in this matter. Good for Nelson to try and fight for this bill.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 10:06 AM
LOL. You're sooooooooooo transparent!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 11:52 AM
LOL! Very good, coming from the ultimate window pane.

Steve