House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses [Archive]

Nbadan

03-19-2009, 11:08 PM

A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.

A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

A.I.G. is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that A.I.G. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html?hp)

TDMVPDPOY

03-19-2009, 11:09 PM

i bet yah those AIG directors are going through their best tax advisors, hey donate all that to one of ur charities you hold a trust in, and wolla or incur some fake tax losses for the year, fuck the system that tries to fuck you.

Winehole23

03-19-2009, 11:09 PM

Wow.

TDMVPDPOY

03-19-2009, 11:14 PM

A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html?hp)

306m in tax payments that derive from the bailout handouts hahahahah fuck that shit shouldve let them go bankrupt, stupid govt....

Wild Cobra

03-20-2009, 12:01 PM

I don't like seeing the bonuses occurring, but its irresponsible for congress to make a ex-post-facto law as well, and expect the courts not to strike it down.

Yonivore

03-20-2009, 12:13 PM

Congress was afraid to tax it all.
Actually, I think it was Shumer that said they were saving the remaining 10% for local and state taxes.

And, while I was wrong about Ex-post facto law-making being applicable, I am seeing some talk about this violating the same clause, under the "bill of attainder" prohibition.

Not being an expert, I'll wait until I'm convinced this is accurate...but, I've seen it on two legal blogs so far. And, yes, they've said this in the context of their recognition the "ex post facto" provision doesn't apply due to the SCOTUS ruling in the late 1700's...and subsequent concurrences.

DarrinS

03-20-2009, 12:17 PM

I like the use of the IRS as a weapon. Good job.

Trainwreck2100

03-20-2009, 02:42 PM

so they're just taking back some of the money they gave them. BFD

Yonivore

03-20-2009, 03:05 PM

Republican Representative McCotter is "shocked at the shock"

gTVTgxLo0V8

He also raises the specter of the legislation being unconstitutional.

TDMVPDPOY

03-20-2009, 05:05 PM

Winehole23

03-20-2009, 05:20 PM

but isnt the govt now a major shareholder and if they can swing a 51% vote at the AGM, they can decline any future commitments of golden handshake deals between the company and directors pay.You'd think so, but the USG seems hesitant to take control of what it already owns (AIG).

That would be the surrender flag of capitalism, or something like that. They're all still dancing around the default, hoping to muddle through somehow.

Currently that is being legislated down here and directors/ceo pay will be looked at by a watch group or up to the shareholders.Tangentially, why shouldn't shareholders themselves be responsible for paying executive bonuses? They can all express the appropriate level of gratitude, in their yearly contribution to the bonuses.

ChumpDumper

03-20-2009, 05:22 PM

Stupid political theater.

Nbadan

03-21-2009, 02:17 PM

That would be the surrender flag of capitalism...

...I think that happened after the first bank bailout..

TDMVPDPOY

03-21-2009, 06:19 PM

USG should tell them AIG go afghanistan there 50m payment is ready in exchange for osama.

angrydude

03-21-2009, 07:51 PM

this isn't going to help the economy.
this is going to solve anything
this is pure politics to take the blame off the govt. for the crappy problem it gave us and the crappy solution its giving to fix it.

They needed something ideological to drive the partisans running to their camps and they found it.

TDMVPDPOY

03-21-2009, 08:00 PM

AIG cant do shit in this economy when every other fkn businesses are voiding contracts and if they had insurance with AIG, AIG doesnt even have the funds for such payouts if its large clients go under......

AIG should just fold, courts will VOID all contracts its been in and any liabilities it has with directors benefits? go line up like every other fkn creditor fuck yah and wait for ur share of whats left in the company

ElNono

03-21-2009, 08:49 PM

I don't like seeing the bonuses occurring, but its irresponsible for congress to make a ex-post-facto law as well, and expect the courts not to strike it down.

But it was OK to hand out retroactive immunity to the telecoms, and courts should not strike THAT down? You're better than that WC.

Wild Cobra

03-22-2009, 10:29 AM

But it was OK to hand out retroactive immunity to the telecoms, and courts should not strike THAT down? You're better than that WC.
Immunity is not a law being made ex-post-facto.

Come on. Don't tell me you don't know the difference.

Oh, Gee!!

03-22-2009, 11:23 AM

The bill would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses given to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at American International Group

wonder if "household income" includes bonuses. don't some of these guys pay themselves really small salaries, like $1/week? I can see some billionaire dude being like "can't tax my $10 million bonus cuz I only earned $500.00 this year--pwnt."

boutons_

03-22-2009, 01:45 PM

wonder if "household income" includes bonuses.

all income is taxable.

A huge ripoff by the rich is that investment income is taxed much lower than earned income.

xrayzebra

03-22-2009, 04:30 PM

wonder if "household income" includes bonuses.

all income is taxable.

A huge ripoff by the rich is that investment income is taxed much lower than earned income.

Yeah, aint it the truth. Those damn rich people risking their money
and getting richer......oopps, maybe I spoke too soon. Seems some
of them kinda lost their ass the last few months......

But what the hell, tax their losses, right, boutons....:rolleyes

ElNono

03-22-2009, 05:22 PM

Immunity is not a law being made ex-post-facto.

Come on. Don't tell me you don't know the difference.

Ofcourse it was was ex-post-facto law. I dare you proving it was not.
It was a law passed by Congress granting retroactive immunity to telecoms. And it was made AFTER court cases were in place in order to have said court cases dismissed. If it was not ex-post-facto then those court cases would have been allowed to continue, since they were filed before the immunity law was issued.

smeagol

03-22-2009, 07:55 PM

I see a lot of bankers leaving American banks and either going to European/Asian banks or simply starting their own shops.

I also see JPM, Wells Fargo and other American banks that are financially sound, returning the TARP funds ASAP.

Clandestino

03-22-2009, 09:15 PM

boutons_

03-22-2009, 09:37 PM

Losing money one quarter is not the same a being bankrupt like Citi and BoA.

WF was forced to take TARP money they didn't want.

Everybody had to take it, ill and well, to obscure from investors and depositors which banks needed it.

Banks overseas aren't doing any better than US banks.

Like lawyers and doctors, there are too many damn bullshit bankers.

boutons_

03-22-2009, 09:39 PM

It looks like the WH will veto the Congressional the bullshit ex-post-facto-tax-the-bankers-after-they've-deposited law.

Congress is full of children. What kind of country elects such assholes?

smeagol

03-23-2009, 06:50 AM

Wild Cobra

03-23-2009, 10:22 AM

Ofcourse it was was ex-post-facto law. I dare you proving it was not.
It was a law passed by Congress granting retroactive immunity to telecoms. And it was made AFTER court cases were in place in order to have said court cases dismissed. If it was not ex-post-facto then those court cases would have been allowed to continue, since they were filed before the immunity law was issued.
No.

They were acting under the authority of the highest executive branch of this nation. They did nothing illegal. The immunity keeps the costly process of litigation from occurring.

Like it or not, the constitution grants broad executive powers. You don't have to like it, but that is fact.

Wild Cobra

03-23-2009, 10:24 AM

It looks like the WH will veto the Congressional the bullshit ex-post-facto-tax-the-bankers-after-they've-deposited law.

Congress is full of children. What kind of country elects such assholes?
Maybe our president is smart enough not to look like a fool when such a law gets overturned.

I wonder if those in congress voting for it have read the constitution?

Winehole23

03-23-2009, 10:56 AM

They were acting under the authority of the highest executive branch of this nation. When Congress passed these amendments to FISA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304)?

They did nothing illegal. The immunity keeps the costly process of litigation from occurring.I assume you mean the TSP. Regarding which the Congressionally mandated immunity prevents discovery, er, costly lawsuits.

Here is the EFF/ACLU brief (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/aclu-eff-challenge-constitutionality-of-fisa-amendments.ars) on the FISA amendments.

Winehole23

03-23-2009, 12:29 PM

In a nutshell, the AIG clawbacks and the amendments to FISA are very precisely analogous, WC. Both actions by Congress, both prima facie ex post facto. You lose this point to El Nono.

The question of whether anyone has any standing to make this complaint much less to prevail, remains to be seen.

Wild Cobra

03-23-2009, 02:38 PM

When Congress passed these amendments to FISA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304)?

I assume you mean the TSP. Regarding which the Congressionally mandated immunity prevents discovery, er, costly lawsuits.

Here is the EFF/ACLU brief (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/aclu-eff-challenge-constitutionality-of-fisa-amendments.ars) on the FISA amendments.

Say what you will. Congress can override previous laws. The president is the executor of law. They cannot override the constitution. The constitution protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It does not protect us completely.

Have to define what is and is not reasonable.

boutons_deux

03-23-2009, 03:18 PM

"president is the executor of law."

as your good buddy dubya and his puppetmaster dickhead demonstrated repeatedly in breaking all precedents for signing statements, the Exec is under no obligation to enforce laws passed by the Legislature.

johnsmith

03-23-2009, 03:29 PM

Really? Another Boutons? Really?

DarrinS

03-23-2009, 03:39 PM

Really? Another Boutons? Really?

Isn't Boutons_Douche a little redundant?

smeagol

03-23-2009, 04:31 PM

Really? Another Boutons? Really?

:smchode:

Winehole23

03-23-2009, 04:56 PM

The constitution protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It does not protect us completely.

Have to define what is and is not reasonable.So unreasonable that John Ashcroft and several of his straight-arrow lieutenants were ready to resign over it unless certain conditions were met.