Thread: Warren Buffet owes 1 BILLION dollars in taxes--but has been fighting it for 10 years

Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.

A. Warren Buffet doesn't owe the IRS a billion dollars

B. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't owe the IRS a billion dollars

For those of you who barely understand English, "Potential future obligation" is not the same as "delinquent".

It's the taxes that the company might owe in the future.

But don't let me interrupt the circle jerk.........

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Right, one guy is calling for the confiscation of other people's property at a higher rate. The other guy wants people to be able to keep their own property.

It's not his personal cash or call in a personal capacity for reasons said above. But that said, I don't see what the big deal is even if it was his personal money at stake (I'm presuming from what I read that the corporate tax issue is being disputed properly in legal channels and manners, not outright criminal evasion that would be a different issue). He's called for raising the tax rate on the wealthy, which includes him. In doing so, he pointed out what he feels is his undue benefit from it that, because it's the current law, he accepts. That's his opinion. Moreover, it involves money rather than a 'family values' soapboxing issue, a special case in my view given I don't believe in having it both ways on money issues such as Mitch McConnell cracking that he can 'donate' it while McConnell votes not to do so on his own behalf and others supporting that. So long as society has the present laws in rejection of past similar views or if it rejects his idea, then he's entitled to make use of what the law is like anyone else because that's the game plan society chooses, and if others aren't doing their part in his view with his suggestion, then all bets are off and so be it all around. For example, if I believe in universal health coverage and am willing to pay my part in a solution, and society rejects that idea, IMO I'm not obliged to start donating to others with others not doing their part along what I suggested. Society made its call and should live by it.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The goal of a corporation is to maximize its return for its shareholders, and if the corporation can get out of paying $1 billion in taxes, that's certainly going to help the shareholders.

So what Berkshire Hathaway owes has really nothing to do with what Warren personally would do. Yes, he's CEO and yes he owns roughly 30% of the company. He would be negligent in his role of CEO if he allowed Berkshire to pay any more than it has to. Corporations have no purpose to 'do whats right' or to 'be fair', their only purpose for existence is to maximize shareholder return. Warrent didn't invent corporations, that's the way they all are.

If Warren Buffet is the Majority single shareholder--even at 30%-- and also the CEO of this company that owes 1 billion dollars to the Federal government--with his continual rhetoric on the wealthy should pay more--then he should pay this tab.

He has no excuses for NOT paying it.

Originally Posted by Oreo

If Warren Buffet is the Majority single shareholder--even at 30%-- and also the CEO of this company that owes 1 billion dollars to the Federal government--with his continual rhetoric on the wealthy should pay more--then he should pay this tab.

He has no excuses for NOT paying it.

And you would be absolutely correct, if the money was due the IRS.
But Buffet isn't delinquent in paying his taxes, and neither is Berkshire Hathaway, the "potential future obligations" will be paid if and when they come due.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The goal of a corporation is to maximize its return for its shareholders, and if the corporation can get out of paying $1 billion in taxes, that's certainly going to help the shareholders.

So what Berkshire Hathaway owes has really nothing to do with what Warren personally would do. Yes, he's CEO and yes he owns roughly 30% of the company. He would be negligent in his role of CEO if he allowed Berkshire to pay any more than it has to. Corporations have no purpose to 'do whats right' or to 'be fair', their only purpose for existence is to maximize shareholder return. Warrent didn't invent corporations, that's the way they all are.

Uh, what?

Seriously, you guys on the left need to step back and listen to yourselves here. All because Warren Buffet is your go-to guy when you need a rich guy who castigates other rich guys, you're willing to defend BH not paying taxes. Yes, that's right. An evil mega-corporation not paying taxes and you guys are writing "well, the IRS can make mistakes" and "sometimes people leave off some zeros" and "the job of a corporation is to maximize profit and not paying taxes is one way to do that." Great, welcome to the club. Now, why is it that none of us buy that you'd act the same if the CEO was someone who called for tax cuts for the rich?

See, this is the reason a lot of people are liberals. Don't get me wrong, a lot of liberals are liberal because they actually are liberal. But there are also a lot of people who espouse liberalism as a "get out of jail" card. It's like when Hillary Clinton makes fun of Indians working at gas stations -- it's OK because she's a liberal, so "clearly" she didn't mean anything by that. Warren Buffet runs around saying "I'm outraged -- outraged!!! -- that people like me don't pay enough taxes!!!" and everyone stands up and applauds and is like "now there's a rich guy who understands!! He gets it!!" Never mind that Warren Buffet could easily voluntarily give extra money to the government at tax time if he feels he should. Never mind that Warren Buffet pays "not enough" taxes because he actively looks for ways to do so. Never mind that at the same time his company is fighting tooth-and-nail to avoid paying any taxes at all. The important thing is he says the right thing and can therefore be cited when I need proof to support increasing taxes on the rich -- even the rich say they need higher taxes!!

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

As CEO, he still owes a duty to all stockholders, not just his own owned portion. IMO, he'd be breaching that duty as CEO to them not to defend the company's bottom line or otherwise act in the company's best interests. It's not his money..it's the company's. The only parts that are his are the stocks he owns and any dividends and salary the company disburses to him.

How about operating illegally?

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

As CEO, he still owes a duty to all stockholders, not just his own owned portion. IMO, he'd be breaching that duty as CEO to them not to defend the company's bottom line or otherwise act in the company's best interests. It's not his money..it's the company's. The only parts that are his are the stocks he owns and any dividends and salary the company disburses to him.

Yes, and there is a legal contract when you buy stock as to what a stockholders rights are. Also a legal contract as to what a CEOs duties are, and how the company is supposed to be run, etc.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Without having the full story about the dispute with the IRS it's hard to say who owes what. The IRS is wrong sometimes.

Cool. All you have to do is be liberal and suddenly it's like "hey, guys, the IRS could be wrong. You don't know!"

Not necessarily. Both I and somebody I know at various points 'owed' the IRS upwards of $20K each. When the smoke cleared and all the hoops were jumped through, the IRS actually owed Us in both cases.

Hmmm... But then again, perhaps WB's calls for higher taxes are part of a behind-the-scenes deal to call off unreasonable IRS bulldogs like the ones that were sent for us.

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

Not necessarily. Both I and somebody I know at various points 'owed' the IRS upwards of $20K each. When the smoke cleared and all the hoops were jumped through, the IRS actually owed Us in both cases.

Hmmm... But then again, perhaps WB's calls for higher taxes are part of a behind-the-scenes deal to call off unreasonable IRS bulldogs like the ones that were sent for us.

Congrats on clearing the hoops and good observation on behind the scenes game play.