Even though President Obama promised BP will cover 100% of the cost of repairing and cleaning up the Gulf Oil Disaster, the Wall Street Journal reports that BP will force taxpayers to pick up at least $9.9 billion of the bill.
How will this happen? BP is planning to use tax-code provisions that allow companies to get refunds on losses. Since the disaster will cost BP at least $32 billion, they want almost $10 billion dollars from taxpayers -- effectively cutting BP clean-up costs by a third.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Any company and individuals can use losses to lower their tax burden. This is written into the tax code. If your house burns down and you have to use your own money above and beyond your insurance settlement, you can write that off your taxes. A few years back I had my solar panels stolen from my property in Northern Arizona and my homeowner's policy only paid for the depreciated worth of the panels which didn't cover the total cost of new ones(which were more expensive because of the scarcity of panels because of the demand), the difference I was able to take off my taxes. Again, this is the law in the tax code as enacted by the federal government, so blame that federal government you so enjoy.
Ooooh, snarky! Anyway, I can keep more than one thought in my head at the same time. You see, I can blame the federal government for many things, while at the same time embracing the need for a federal government to manage, regulate, and oversee.
I love it how you dally around the fringe of the post, but don't argue the main point of the post or the thread itself; but maybe that is because you have no rebuttal.
Glad you love it!
Anyway, if it is proven that there was no negligence (I think this is highly unlikely) then there would be no problem for BP to use the tax code in this manner. If, however, there was negligence, then it wasn't a fucking disaster but possibly criminal. To use your example, if you take a torch to your house and burn it down, don't expect to take a disaster loss on your taxes.
Negligence isn't intent and I don't think BP intended any of this. If you are negligent around your stove and leave something unattended and your house burns down you are not considered an arsonist. And unless I am mistaken(which could be as I have not experimented with this exact situation)your insurance would pay out. You might find it hard to get insurance again(and don't think BP will have the same ease in getting insurance for awhile as Exxon does), but hey you were negligent.
Perhaps. And I cannot say that I understand the tax law on this situation as the only time I have ever encountered it at all is the aftermath of a hurricane (surely, a disaster).
That said, and realizing this may not even be possible, if BP employees were bypassing safety precautions to save a buck (as has been alleged) then that should forbid them from taking tax deductions. Sure, I'm positive no one WANTED the spill to happen. They probably wanted to be reckless and lucky. They should not be able to write such stupidity off on their taxes IMHO.
Post a Comment