Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

Weekly Standard ^ | September 20, 2010 | John McCormack

[reaganaut1]

Lately, the White House and its allies have been drawing attention to the political activities of libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. In an August 9 speech, President Obama singled out Americans for Prosperity, a free-market political group founded by David Koch in 2004. In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Obama said:

...

"Using a great deal" of research by the left-wing Center for American Progress, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported in the magazine's August 30 issue that the Kochs are "waging a war against Obama." Reason's Nick Gillespie argued that Mayer's report was nothing more than "sly innuendo and revelations as lame as they are breathless," but that hasn't stopped top Democrats from blasting the Kochs for funding the Democrats' political opposition.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen said in a September 10 TV appearance that "Americans for Prosperity which are the Koch Industries ... did well under the Bush administration economic policies," which is why AFP is opposing the Democrats. In a September 16 speech, President Obama again singled out Americans for Prosperity. Even Jimmy Carter took a whack at the Kochs last week.

While the attention is unwanted for the Kochs, if somewhat expected, a lawyer for Koch Industries now tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the administration may have crossed a line by revealing tax information about Koch Industries. According to Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, a senior Obama administration official told reporters at an August 27 on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:

[nascarnation]

No surprise of course.

The fact that they have been able to totally scrub every trace of Baraq’s existence over a period of decades tells you they have a world class group of operatives.

Kind of makes the Clinton mafia look like amateurs.

[thesearethetimes...]

Bump to follow.

[Inappropriate Laughter]

Filings with the sec of state (at least in the states I’ve done it, and I expect it’s the same all over) don’t require provision of federal income tax information.

[kenavi]

Wrong. The type of incorporation is public information.

Prove it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Koch Industries is based in Wichita, KS.
They are a world-wide, privately held company, owned by Charles and David Koch.
There is very little mystery about the company. 100 percent of the shares in Koch are owned or controlled by the Koch brothers.

[Inappropriate Laughter]

And because it is a private company the income taxes it pays is not published (try and find it), and so it seems likely that the source of the information was the IRS. Which would be, if the laws meant anything and applied to “The One,” illegal.

[DBeers]

trad_anglican is correct -the type of corporation is public information available from the Secretary of State within the state the company incorporated in.

HOWEVER, the type of corporation, although relevant as to the fact that Koch is a private versus public company that is not required to and does not file public financial statements with the SEC, is irrelevant as to the accusation that the administration released private information -financial information only available from private tax filings -this as evidenced in this White House staff statement:

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses."

I would say that we see 0zero & his merry band of useful idiots once again caught with their hands in the cookie jar...

[secondamendmentkid]

The Weakly Lack of Standards need to stay off of phony O’Donnell stories and concentrate on the Kenyan. This could be a diversionary tactic to throw off those of us that have been kicking them in the ass for their lack of conservative principles. Kristol, Barnes, Krautmeister, and the new dude on Fox Report from that rag need to get the message - we’re coming after them if they don’t straighten out their act.

[OregonPatriot2010]

The Yomama regime is using the IRS to intimidate financial supporters of political opponents. Are you surprised?

[Sequoyah101]

Encourages spending and maybe inefficiency.

[noinfringers2]

I would like to know more about the possibility of sherif Arpazio(?) or even the state of Arizona sueing the Feds and chief enforcer Obama as to the eligibility as POTUSA to bring such suits against them. Arizona certainly would have standing in the SCOTUSA.

[ELS]

Thanks for the link to that piece.

[PGR88]

this, the DOJ vendettas against individuals in
AZ, the back-door funding of the likes of ACORN - Obama is worse than what liberals accused Nixon of doing.

[RobFromGa]

the state has no bearing on whether you are an S Corp. you file this request for S Corp status with the IRS after you create the corporation with the sec of state... the state is NOT involved

[esoxmagnum]

Maybe they just asked Hillary for her “files”

[penelopesire]

Add yet another impeachable offense log to the simmering fire.

BTTT!!

[kenavi]

DBeers, the argument was whether the public records of incorporation reveal whether a corporation pays (corporate income) taxes or not, that is whether it is a "C" or an "S" corporation.

They do not. Here for example is how the Indiana SOS categorizes Koch Industries's corporate status:

"For-Profit Foreign Corporation "

"Foreign" means Koch is actually incorporated in another state, probably a state popular for incorporations due to the state's rules as to Stockholding Voting and such things (e.g. Delaware, Nevada).

There is no and there is never a mention of the corporation's tax filing status.

If a corporation is a publicly traded one, then you will see in its 10-Ks and 10-Qs filed with the SEC, substantial financial disclosure, including the tax provisions, how much in the U.S. and foreign, and how much overall tax actually paid.

So you are right, the Obama Administration gave it self away by disclosing non-public information on Koch Industries, Inc.'s tax status.

Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, what BHO is really decrying is that the owners of Koch, as well as countless other owners of S corps., LLCs, and P'ships, are not paying double taxation on income from the business entities.

Why should they?

[Cowman]

Hmmmm... Perhaps some ambitious attorneys should find out the number of non Democrats with IRS trouble vs the number of Democrats. If the percentage of non Democrats is significantly higher than that of the general population there may be a huge class action against the IRS here.

And one they wouldn't like to become public knowledge