If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Not only did Facebook not have to pay taxes on their $1 billion in profits last year, they received a $429 million dollar refund   (foxnews.com) divider line 91
    More: Sick, Facebook, account of profits, Citizens for Tax Justice, dollars  
•       •       •

2336 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Feb 2013 at 10:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-17 04:44:12 AM
Unfarkingreal
 
2013-02-17 04:52:49 AM
My first thought before reading the article was... something, something, Obama?
Well lookie here...

Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook, which has experts speculating why they haven't been singled out.

Everything is his fault!
 
2013-02-17 05:33:48 AM
They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.
 
2013-02-17 06:15:52 AM
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-02-17 06:40:42 AM

Smashed Hat: My first thought before reading the article was... something, something, Obama?
Well lookie here...

Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook, which has experts speculating why they haven't been singled out.

Everything is his fault!


Do you not take every opportunity to bash the "other side"?

And subs, lack of snark makes baby Jesus cry.
 
2013-02-17 07:11:59 AM
"The president certainly has a double standard when it comes to picking out examples that help advance his policies agenda," Curtis Dubay, a senior tax policy analyst with conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, said to Fox News. "He often points to oil and gas companies as taking corporate deductions that are perfectly legal under the law. But he leaves out others like Facebook, which is perfectly legal. But he doesn't point them out and make them an example the same way he does an industry like oil and gas."

Probably because the oil and gas industries also get billions in subsidies.
 
2013-02-17 07:48:03 AM

sithon: Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


Having a good accountant is an act of wrong doing.
 
2013-02-17 07:49:01 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


Done in three.

It's the end result of people legislating based on the idiotic notion of "make corporations pay their fair share" as if business have a big pile of fifties and hundreds out back of their offices, and they can just pitchfork a few heaps of cash into a wheelbarrow to placate the taxman.

Taxes on businesses are pass-alongs. End of story, full stop. Either the tax nut gets passed along to employees in the form of lower compensation or layoffs, or it gets passed along to investors in the form of lower returns, or it gets passed on to customers in the form of higher prices and/or shiattier products. No matter which way you go, it's the individual who pays. Might as well quit bullshiatting people and put it out in the open.

Kill the taxes and the subsidies. Let's see who wants to be capitalists and who wants to extract favors from Washington.
 
2013-02-17 08:05:59 AM
How could anyone have seen the impact of the "'Sparkly Crying Eagle Flying Over the Twin Towers' Image Tax Credit?"
 
2013-02-17 08:24:57 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


That IPO was overpriced from the get-go and everyone knows it. There shouldn't have been "losses" to start.
 
2013-02-17 08:52:57 AM
clearly, the answer is LOWER TAXES & LESS REGULATION!*


*of course, that's the answer to everything.
 
2013-02-17 09:20:29 AM
Wait, am I supposed to be disgusted by this or praise them for job creation?

I can't keep up these days.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-17 09:43:19 AM

Smashed Hat: My first thought before reading the article was... something, something, Obama?
Well lookie here...

Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook, which has experts speculating why they haven't been singled out.

Everything is his fault!


26 Ways Obama Has Ruined America
 
2013-02-17 09:45:47 AM
Oh ffs.
Our tax code is broken.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-17 09:46:26 AM

Shostie: Wait, am I supposed to be disgusted by this or praise them for job creation?

I can't keep up these days.


It's a simple 2 rule formula.

1) If a Democrat does anything you should be outraged no matter how good it is for the country and it's people.

2) If a Republican does something you should sing praise, not matter how f*cked up it is.  If it's outrageous, spin it to sound like it's a good thing.
 
2013-02-17 09:55:26 AM

Smashed Hat: My first thought before reading the article was... something, something, Obama?
Well lookie here...

Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook, which has experts speculating why they haven't been singled out.

Everything is his fault!


So you look to blame Obama for literally everything. Thanks for letting the rest of us know not to ever take anything you say seriously
 
2013-02-17 10:08:07 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


Nah, TFA says it's because employees exercised a lot of stock options. You can argue with the law that allows the company to take a deduction on them, but Facebook didn't do anything wrong here.
 
2013-02-17 10:31:54 AM
Wow. If people weren't convinced Facebook isn't connected to the inner workings of government, this should seal that doubt.
 
2013-02-17 10:33:49 AM
That is sick. If it wasn't for idiots in Congress and the President then they could have received a more deserved $450 million refund.
 
2013-02-17 10:35:18 AM

Godscrack: Wow. If people weren't convinced Facebook isn't connected to the inner workings of government, this should seal that doubt.


Duh



Zuckerberg is a well known Reptilian Zionist
 
2013-02-17 10:38:26 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


BS.  The retail investor lost.  Investment firms and insiders bought/owned shares before the IPO and sold at those inflated prices.  They made their money.  One giant ponzi scheme.
 
2013-02-17 10:48:46 AM

cman: Zuckerberg is a well known Reptilian Zionist


FB is a heavily secure encrypted site. Just like a banks website.

THIS MEANS SOMETHING.
 
2013-02-17 10:52:16 AM

NFA: Shostie: Wait, am I supposed to be disgusted by this or praise them for job creation?

I can't keep up these days.

It's a simple 2 rule formula.

1) If a Democrat does anything you should be outraged no matter how good it is for the country and it's people.

2) If a Republican does something you should sing praise, not matter how f*cked up it is.  If it's outrageous, spin it to sound like it's a good thing.


Unless you're a Democrat.  Then it's reversed.
 
2013-02-17 10:53:03 AM
Folks, there's nothing to see here.  Corporations which have financial losses from previous fiscal years are permitted to carry-over those losses from one year to the next, offsetting profits.  The purpose of this is to encourage long-term investment and infrastructural development.  Facebook simply reaped the benefit of that this time around.
 
2013-02-17 10:53:41 AM
Here's what I don't get.  According to Facebook's published financial statements -- which is what their taxes are based on -- they've been paying taxes every year:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AFB&fstype=ii&ei=o_wgUegHiL rQ Aflu


In Millions of USD (except for per share items)12 months ending 2012-12-3112 months ending 2011-12-3112 months ending 2010-12-3112 months ending 2009-12-31Revenue5,089.003,711.001,974.00777.00Other Revenue, Total----Total Revenue5,089.003,711.001,974.00777.00Cost of Revenue, Total1,364.00860.00493.00223.00Gross Profit3,725.002,851.001,481.00554.00Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total1,788.00707.00305.00205.00Research & Development1,399.00388.00144.0087.00Depreciation/Amortization----Inter est Expense(Income) - Net Operating----Unusual Expense (Income)----Other Operating Expenses, Total----Total Operating Expense4,551.001,955.00942.00515.00Operating Income538.001,756.001,032.00262.00Interest Income(Expense), Net Non-Operating----Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets----Other, Net16.0010.00-1.002.00Income Before Tax494.001,695.001,008.00254.00Income After Tax53.001,000.00606.00229.00
Also, I don't see where the "record profits" come from -- clearly their best year of after-tax profits was 2011, not 2012.
 
2013-02-17 10:54:45 AM
Oh that's lame -- the table structure doesn't stay even though it looks like it pasted in the comment box?
 
2013-02-17 10:55:28 AM
You are all guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Job Creators (Creators be praised).  Repeat four Hail Reagans and give them another tax cut, and you will be forgiven.

This time.
 
2013-02-17 10:56:23 AM
Also, here's Facebook's 10-K filing for anyone who wants to dive in:

http://investor.fb.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1326801-13-3&CIK=13268 01
 
2013-02-17 10:56:33 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,so they probably rolled those losses into this year and boom they're getting a refund.
Don't ascribe to malfeasance what might simply be the work of a good accountant.


it's a fraudulent, immoral and ultimately unconstitutional law written exclusively to benefit multimillion dollar companies.  Just because the value of some stock dropped doesn't mean they lost real money, just the perceived value of the company.  It's nothing but corporate welfare and the taxpayers don't need to be propping up shiat like this.
 
2013-02-17 10:58:25 AM

sithon: They also lost an assload on their IPO,


They didn't lose a dime on their IPO.

They sold stock in a company at a very high price (good for them).

Soon people who bought the stock found that it wasn't worth what they paid.

Facebook kept the money that they originally sold part of the company for.
 
2013-02-17 11:02:00 AM

Arkanaut: Here's what I don't get.  According to Facebook's published financial statements -- which is what their taxes are based on -- they've been paying taxes every year:


That's not specifying income tax though.  Between FICA, unemployment and other taxes (which don't have offsets for prior fiscal year losses), Facebook certainly paid some taxes in each year its existed.
 
2013-02-17 11:06:43 AM

Arkanaut: Also, here's Facebook's 10-K filing for anyone who wants to dive in:

http://investor.fb.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1326801-13-3&CIK=13268 01


From TFFootnotes of the 10-K:

Prior to January 1, 2011, we granted RSUs (Pre-2011 RSUs) under our 2005 Stock Plan to our employees and members of our board of directors that vested upon the satisfaction of both a service condition and a liquidity condition. The service condition for the majority of these awards is satisfied over four years . The liquidity condition was satisfied six months after our initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012. The vesting condition that was satisfied six months following our IPO did not affect the expense attribution period for the RSUs for which the service condition has been met as of the date of our IPO. This six-month period was not a substantive service condition and, accordingly, beginning on the effectiveness of our IPO in May 2012, we recognized cumulative share-based compensation expense for the portion of the RSUs that had met the service condition, following the accelerated attribution method (net of estimated forfeitures). In the year ended December 31, 2012 , we recognized $1.04 billion of share-based compensation expense related to our Pre-2011 RSUs. Refer to Note 11 Stockholders' Equity for disclosure with respect to the settlement of the Pre-2011 RSUs.

In other words: Now that we've IPO'ed we're eligible to take a deduction on the vested stock options that had been issued to our employees over the years, to the tune of $1 billion +

Again, there's nothing illegal about it. And I'm sure they have some loss carryforwards as well.
 
2013-02-17 11:07:20 AM

FlashHarry: clearly, the answer is LOWER TAXES & LESS REGULATION!*


*of course, that's the answer to everything.




No we need to cut Social Security and Medicare.

And cut Food-stamps.

The 47% are killing this country!
 
2013-02-17 11:12:12 AM
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."   - Leona Helmsley
 
2013-02-17 11:13:44 AM

FreakinB: In other words: Now that we've IPO'ed we're eligible to take a deduction on the vested stock options that had been issued to our employees over the years, to the tune of $1 billion +

Again, there's nothing illegal about it. And I'm sure they have some loss carryforwards as well.


I don't think anyone is saying it is illegal.

This is just like the whining people were doing when Romney had low taxes mainly because most of his income was in long term capital gains.
 
2013-02-17 11:16:44 AM
Rich people's problems, or perhaps gains.
 
2013-02-17 11:19:46 AM
Yay Obama!
 
2013-02-17 11:22:26 AM
Which county was the president talking about?
 
2013-02-17 11:34:31 AM
So umm - who gets that money?

'Facebook' earned a billion in profits....but who actually gets to spend that money?  The employees?  Well, no, they get paid a salary, right?  And that gets taxed.  So I guess I'm just a little confused by what this means.
 
2013-02-17 11:38:17 AM

Smashed Hat: My first thought before reading the article was... something, something, Obama?
Well lookie here...

Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook, which has experts speculating why they haven't been singled out.

Everything is his fault!


There isn't a single ounce of blame in what you quoted. You're looking for outrage. It says that the president singles out this problem with oil companies constantly and makes them the front page villain, all the while every company does it (like FB) but the president doesn't say a peep about it.
 
2013-02-17 11:42:16 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: So umm - who gets that money?

'Facebook' earned a billion in profits....but who actually gets to spend that money?  The employees?  Well, no, they get paid a salary, right?  And that gets taxed.  So I guess I'm just a little confused by what this means.


Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%, so let's not make believe this is counted as regular income.  There are wealthy citizens even now pushing to eliminate capital gains altogether.  Since capital gains are parasitic, they should actually be taxed higher than labor based income.
 
2013-02-17 11:49:58 AM
"In fact, the website will actually be getting a refund totaling $429 million thanks to a tax reduction for executive stock options."

Nobody pays me in stock options.

:(
 
2013-02-17 11:54:43 AM
If a service is free, YOU  are the product.
 
2013-02-17 12:03:20 PM

Nemo's Brother: Yay Obama!


This is exactly the kind of tax break Obama is trying to put an end to.
 
2013-02-17 12:09:18 PM

mactheknife: Arkanaut: Here's what I don't get.  According to Facebook's published financial statements -- which is what their taxes are based on -- they've been paying taxes every year:

That's not specifying income tax though.  Between FICA, unemployment and other taxes (which don't have offsets for prior fiscal year losses), Facebook certainly paid some taxes in each year its existed.


Sure, that probably would have been rolled up into Selling/General/Administrative expenses.  But when people typically complain about corporate taxes they're talking about the 35% they're supposed to pay on their net revenue, which appears to be actually less than what FB is paying if you subtract their net income after taxes from their net income before taxes.

FreakinB: Arkanaut: Also, here's Facebook's 10-K filing for anyone who wants to dive in:

http://investor.fb.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1326801-13-3&CIK=13268 01

From TFFootnotes of the 10-K:

Prior to January 1, 2011, we granted RSUs (Pre-2011 RSUs) under our 2005 Stock Plan to our employees and members of our board of directors that vested upon the satisfaction of both a service condition and a liquidity condition. The service condition for the majority of these awards is satisfied over four years . The liquidity condition was satisfied six months after our initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012. The vesting condition that was satisfied six months following our IPO did not affect the expense attribution period for the RSUs for which the service condition has been met as of the date of our IPO. This six-month period was not a substantive service condition and, accordingly, beginning on the effectiveness of our IPO in May 2012, we recognized cumulative share-based compensation expense for the portion of the RSUs that had met the service condition, following the accelerated attribution method (net of estimated forfeitures). In the year ended December 31, 2012 , we recognized $1.04 billion of share-based compensation expense related to our Pre-2011 RSUs. Refer to Note 11 Stockholders' Equity for disclosure with respect to the settlement of the Pre-2011 RSUs.

In other words: Now that we've IPO'ed we're eligible to take a deduction on the vested stock options that had been issued to our employees over the years, to the tune of $1 billion +

Again, there's nothing illegal about it. And I'm sure they have some loss carryforwards as well.


Why wouldn't that be something reflected on the income statement though? Or is the refund something that would go to the shareholders directly?
 
2013-02-17 12:25:36 PM
Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns received a large boost from social media sites such as Facebook


How, exactly? Can the journalist in tfa demonstrate that it was corporate policy to help the Obama campaign, or list at least one instance where they did?
 
2013-02-17 12:28:12 PM

Arkanaut: Why wouldn't that be something reflected on the income statement though? Or is the refund something that would go to the shareholders directly?


They are reflected on the income statement. It's just not this year's income statement. For book purposes the stock options are expensed when they're granted, so they hit the financials back in prior years. But just granting the options isn't considered a taxable event since their exact value isn't set at that time. So the tax deduction comes later, either once the options are exercised or some later time (depending on the particulars of the stock option plan).
 
2013-02-17 12:28:26 PM
Wait.... maybe I'm missing something here, but if I don't owe taxes, I get my withholding back as a tax refund.

So how is this any different? If Facebook paid in $429 million but owed no taxes (I concede 'no taxes owed' is ridiculous), they should, by law, get that money back. It doesn't make the idea that they owed no taxes any more or less ridiculous, it's just an effect of not owing taxes and getting back the money they pre-paid (or loaned, interest-free, as some see it) the government.
 
2013-02-17 12:46:21 PM

LesserEvil: Wait.... maybe I'm missing something here, but if I don't owe taxes, I get my withholding back as a tax refund.

So how is this any different? If Facebook paid in $429 million but owed no taxes (I concede 'no taxes owed' is ridiculous), they should, by law, get that money back. It doesn't make the idea that they owed no taxes any more or less ridiculous, it's just an effect of not owing taxes and getting back the money they pre-paid (or loaned, interest-free, as some see it) the government.


Nobody's debating any of that you dumbass troll.
 
2013-02-17 12:47:54 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You are all guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Job Creators (Creators be praised).  Repeat four Hail Reagans and give them another tax cut, and you will be forgiven.

This time.


What's the difference between God and a job creator?

/Why yes, I am a Heretic. All of 'em can go frak themselves.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report