[MW Forums]

The IRS has billed Symantec $1 billion in back taxes. more

[macFanDave]

I knew that when Congress passed the DeLay-Cunningham Suck-Ass Tax, a tax for companies that make crappy products, that Symantec would be hard hit.

[NW_Mike]

What is the world are you talking about? Does this comment have any relevancy to the article or are you just being a "I celebrate diversity, except when you are a conservative" liberal?

[leroybrown]

It's what he does... makes everything political, even when it's not.
Sure, it's not funny, but even those professional comedians stopped being funny when they turned political after Gore lost. (I'm ignoring the people who were political before hand... those usually had a talent for it and continued to be at least entertaining.)

[TheJoyOfItAll]

Well this is just sour grapes on behalf of the IRS. The run up to this has been well publicised in financial circles. Essentially Symantec has a subsidary in Ireland which bought their IP porfolio. Fair enough. That company now is taxed at Irish rates. Fair enough. Ireland (like many countries) has a lower corporate tax rate than the US. The IRS is complaining that Symantec sold their portfolio at too low a price. If they got a higher price they would have a greater taxable profit. Well its up to Symantec to decide what is a good price. The portfolio is obviously worth more now, it wasn't worth as much in the US as it was taxed so heavily. The IRS can't really have it both ways. Its just [filtered] that their rate is so high that international companies logically choose to locate in lower rate countries. The IRS would have you believe that EVERY country in the world is a tax haven... well they would say that as they have a higher rate than most. Tax revenue, just like jobs & capital are highly mobile. This is the first high profile case where a nation state (rather than its citizens) are feeling some of the negative effects of globalisation and is trying to hold back the tide.

[kwill]

As an artist in the U.S. I realize the value of intellectual property. However, the value established by the beholder is based on many factors. With this IRS ruling is it too farfetched to foresee them coming after artists whom they feel charged too little for their artwork -- demanding back taxes and penalties based on the IRS assigned value? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ZheMappel]

Uncle Sam's passing the hat to pay for his invasions. Time to pony up, suckas!

[Schneb]

I wonder if a virus got passed their copy of Symantec at the IRS and they did a "special audit". /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Kidding, of course. This is why we have tax lawyers. We need tow wait and see what happens. Personally, I am all for a flat or consumption tax. This whole paperwork thing drives me nuts every year.

[DPG4450Guy]

past, not "passed"
Anyway, I'm sure this won't survive a court battle.
The IRS is way out of line here.

[leroybrown]

In reply to:

---

Its just [filtered] that their rate is so high that international companies logically choose to locate in lower rate countries. The IRS would have you believe that EVERY country in the world is a tax haven... well they would say that as they have a higher rate than most. Tax revenue, just like jobs & capital are highly mobile. This is the first high profile case where a nation state (rather than its citizens) are feeling some of the negative effects of globalisation and is trying to hold back the tide.

---

Sounds reasonable. In the current political climate, corporate tax reductions are almost a non-starter because it's too hard to explain that tax cuts don't equate to revenue cuts. Any such action would instantly be called a tax cut for corporate fat cats, etc.

[macFanDave]

In reply to:

---

Does this comment have any relevancy to the article. . .?

---

Yes, it does. The real point of the comment was an indictment on Symantec's quality.
Inappropriate personal attack removed.

[mac_the_knife]

Please pardon my ignorance regarding a lot of these matters. But a quick question... suppose Symantec valued their IP portfolio at, say, $50 billion (just picking a number out of thin air) for purposes of some required SEC filing or what-not. Investors, relying on this information, increase their valuation of Symantec's stock, and Symantec benefits. Now, when Symantec sells its portfolio to Irish subsidiary, it sells it for only $40 billion, getting the benefit of the lower valuation (less taxes relating to the sale, etc.) It seems that there's a basic principle that if you take a position as to the value of an asset, you should take the good with the bad.
If this is the situation, then I don't think it's simply sour grapes on the part of the IRS. Then again, if this isn't the situation, it might be.

[jhillestad]

Hurry up and pay Symantec people on welfare are depending on you....

[macnuke]

guess Symantec forgot to update their TurboTax /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
and now you know why they keep trying to sell Mac users AVware.