Skip to comments.
Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?
Weekly Standard ^
| September 20, 2010
| John McCormack
Posted on 09/20/2010 2:12:12 PM PDT by reaganaut1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: FormerACLUmember
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.
To: Candor7
42
posted on
09/20/2010 6:45:48 PM PDT
by
thesearethetimes...
("Courage, is fear that has said its prayers." DorothyBernard)
To: trad_anglican
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.
43
posted on
09/20/2010 7:32:28 PM PDT
by
Inappropriate Laughter
(Obama: Another illegal alien living in public housing)
To: trad_anglican
Wrong. The type of incorporation is public information.
Prove it.
44
posted on
09/20/2010 7:38:29 PM PDT
by
kenavi
(What drove BP to drill 5,000 feet down?)
To: Inappropriate Laughter
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.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
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.
46
posted on
09/20/2010 8:12:54 PM PDT
by
Inappropriate Laughter
(Obama: Another illegal alien living in public housing)
To: kenavi; trad_anglican
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...
47
posted on
09/20/2010 8:35:04 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: reaganaut1
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.
To: reaganaut1
The Yomama regime is using the IRS to intimidate financial supporters of political opponents. Are you surprised?
To: nodakkid
Encourages spending and maybe inefficiency.
50
posted on
09/20/2010 10:09:57 PM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(Half of the population is below average)
To: wintertime
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.
To: Candor7
Thanks for the link to that piece.
52
posted on
09/20/2010 10:43:20 PM PDT
by
ELS
(Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
To: reaganaut1
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.
53
posted on
09/21/2010 2:56:19 AM PDT
by
PGR88
To: trad_anglican
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
54
posted on
09/21/2010 3:15:31 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(The FairTax is to tax policy as Global Warming is to science.)
To: reaganaut1
Maybe they just asked Hillary for her “files”
To: hoosiermama
Add yet another impeachable offense log to the simmering fire.
BTTT!!
56
posted on
09/21/2010 8:41:46 AM PDT
by
penelopesire
('You are either with us or you are with the marxists')
To: DBeers; trad_anglican
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?
57
posted on
09/21/2010 2:27:57 PM PDT
by
kenavi
(What drove BP to drill 5,000 feet down?)
To: PGR88
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
58
posted on
09/22/2010 1:08:05 PM PDT
by
Cowman
(How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson