Reply With Quote
Congress was afraid to tax it all.
Congress was afraid to tax it all.
A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments
NY TimesWhile 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 en ies 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 en led to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year.
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, the system that tries to you.
Wow.
306m in tax payments that derive from the bailout handouts hahahahah that shouldve let them go bankrupt, stupid govt....
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.
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.
I like the use of the IRS as a weapon. Good job.
so they're just taking back some of the money they gave them. BFD
Republican Representative McCotter is "shocked at the shock"
He also raises the specter of the legislation being uncons utional.
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.
Currently that is being legislated down here and directors/ceo pay will be looked at by a watch group or up to the shareholders.
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.
Tangentially, why shouldn't shareholders themselves be responsible for paying executive bonuses? They can all express the appropriate level of gra ude, in their yearly contribution to the bonuses.
Stupid political theater.
...I think that happened after the first bank bailout..That would be the surrender flag of capitalism...
USG should tell them AIG go afghanistan there 50m payment is ready in exchange for osama.
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.
AIG cant do 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 yah and wait for ur share of whats left in the company
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.
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."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.
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 , tax their losses, right, boutons....
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
