PDA

View Full Version : As If I Didn't Already Hate Gas Companies Enough...



duane1969
04-22-2011, 06:08 PM
BP plans to cut it's tax bill by $13 billion dollars by writing off it's losses from last year's oil spill. That's right. You read correctly. BP spilled billions of dollars of oil, destroyed a coastline and seafood industry, still hasn't completely cleaned up...and now they are sticking America with the bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/22/bp-cut-tax-13b-losses-spill/

theonedru
04-22-2011, 07:02 PM
and on top of that they will find a way to raise prices for their already overpriced product and stick that to consumers as well

duane1969
04-22-2011, 08:26 PM
They are ahead of you on that one.

theonedru
04-22-2011, 08:29 PM
true but they are always pushing the bar higher and higher

sanfran22
04-22-2011, 09:45 PM
Lol, not sure about the overpriced part of that but welcome to the machine.......

habsheaven
04-22-2011, 11:06 PM
Is BP not a company just like any other company? You cannot impose expenses on a company (clean up, fines/restitution) and then deny that company the ability to claim those expenses against revenues.

pr0phet
04-22-2011, 11:11 PM
Is BP not a company just like any other company? You cannot impose expenses on a company (clean up, fines/restitution) and then deny that company the ability to claim those expenses against revenues.

What if they claim the it wasn't their fault (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcUa0dDOzR6RFQPCjIRJSboBuB4Q?docId=4559ada28 61946e2b666850687aae8f6)

habsheaven
04-22-2011, 11:24 PM
What if they claim the it wasn't their fault (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcUa0dDOzR6RFQPCjIRJSboBuB4Q?docId=4559ada28 61946e2b666850687aae8f6)

Not sure what that has to do with anything. If they have legitimate business expenses, they are entitled to claim them. Government cannot just change tax law for one company because they feel like it.

duane1969
04-23-2011, 12:15 AM
Not sure what that has to do with anything. If they have legitimate business expenses, they are entitled to claim them. Government cannot just change tax law for one company because they feel like it.

Agreed. It is a tax loophole that they are using.

I take issue with it because the government and people have footed part of the bill for the cleanup not to mention the economic losses that the spill caused. BP has not completely cleaned up the mess. BP has not reimbursed those who lost money because of the spill. BP has not reimbursed the government for what they spent to fix BP's mess.

I take issue with them not cleaning up their mess and then profiting from the mess on top of it.

habsheaven
04-23-2011, 10:09 AM
Agreed. It is a tax loophole that they are using.

I take issue with it because the government and people have footed part of the bill for the cleanup not to mention the economic losses that the spill caused. BP has not completely cleaned up the mess. BP has not reimbursed those who lost money because of the spill. BP has not reimbursed the government for what they spent to fix BP's mess.

I take issue with them not cleaning up their mess and then profiting from the mess on top of it.

How is claiming legitimate expenses a tax loophole? If they are claiming losses, how are they profiting?

AUTaxMan
04-24-2011, 07:22 PM
Agreed. It is a tax loophole that they are using.

I take issue with it because the government and people have footed part of the bill for the cleanup not to mention the economic losses that the spill caused. BP has not completely cleaned up the mess. BP has not reimbursed those who lost money because of the spill. BP has not reimbursed the government for what they spent to fix BP's mess.

I take issue with them not cleaning up their mess and then profiting from the mess on top of it.


A. As a tax lawyer, I will tell you that it is definitely NOT a tax "loophole" for them to be able to deduct casualty losses and legitimate business expenses related to the spill.

B. BP has (and to the extent that it hasn't, ultimately will) footed the bill for the oil spill, not the government.

C. As a resident of the Gulf Coast, I can tell you that the mess is 99.9% cleaned up. BP is administering the claims process as efficiently and effectively as possible, and it is paying claims on a daily basis.

D. The REAL damage to the Gulf Coast was that done by the government and the media by politicizing and sensationalizing the spill, thereby scaring away all tourists and buyers of Gulf seafood for pretty much NO reason.

In short, the mess is mostly clean, BP is paying for it, and they are certainly NOT profiting off of it.

duane1969
04-24-2011, 10:05 PM
How is claiming legitimate expenses a tax loophole? If they are claiming losses, how are they profiting?

I see it as a loophole because the losses are a result of their own actions. It is not a standard business expense. It isn't the usual cost of doing business.


A. As a tax lawyer, I will tell you that it is definitely NOT a tax "loophole" for them to be able to deduct casualty losses and legitimate business expenses related to the spill.

B. BP has (and to the extent that it hasn't, ultimately will) footed the bill for the oil spill, not the government.

C. As a resident of the Gulf Coast, I can tell you that the mess is 99.9% cleaned up. BP is administering the claims process as efficiently and effectively as possible, and it is paying claims on a daily basis.

D. The REAL damage to the Gulf Coast was that done by the government and the media by politicizing and sensationalizing the spill, thereby scaring away all tourists and buyers of Gulf seafood for pretty much NO reason.

In short, the mess is mostly clean, BP is paying for it, and they are certainly NOT profiting off of it.

A) See my previous comment to habs.

B) So BP will be reimbursing the Fed for all of the money that was spent? For example, the visits to the Gulf Coast by Pres. Obama. My guess is no, they will not. So taxpayers lost out. If you do a little digging into how much it costs for the Pres. to travel then you will know that it is no small amount. Add in visits by congressmen, senators, government employees involved in monitoring the clean-up, etc. and you have hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars spent on the BP oil spill that will not be gotten back.

C) Perhaps in your area but not all of the Gulf Coast is 99.9% cleaned up. My guess is that much more effort was focused in Mobile than in more rural areas.

D) While I agree that the media sensationalizes things, I find it hard to believe that they "over sensationalized" an oil spill of 100 million gallons.

By my count BP is profiting from the tax break, which was what I was saying. Prior to the $11.4 billion tax break they were recording a $4.8 billion net loss. A little simple math tells me that they went from $4.8 billion in the red to $6.6 billion in the black.

habsheaven
04-25-2011, 10:56 AM
I see it as a loophole because the losses are a result of their own actions. It is not a standard business expense. It isn't the usual cost of doing business.

I'm curious. Have you ever taken a business course? You really can't be serious. If this is "how you think" in general, no wonder why we disagree on so many issues.:rolleyes:

AUTaxMan
04-25-2011, 11:06 AM
I see it as a loophole because the losses are a result of their own actions. It is not a standard business expense. It isn't the usual cost of doing business.

A) See my previous comment to habs.

B) So BP will be reimbursing the Fed for all of the money that was spent? For example, the visits to the Gulf Coast by Pres. Obama. My guess is no, they will not. So taxpayers lost out. If you do a little digging into how much it costs for the Pres. to travel then you will know that it is no small amount. Add in visits by congressmen, senators, government employees involved in monitoring the clean-up, etc. and you have hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars spent on the BP oil spill that will not be gotten back.

C) Perhaps in your area but not all of the Gulf Coast is 99.9% cleaned up. My guess is that much more effort was focused in Mobile than in more rural areas.

D) While I agree that the media sensationalizes things, I find it hard to believe that they "over sensationalized" an oil spill of 100 million gallons.

By my count BP is profiting from the tax break, which was what I was saying. Prior to the $11.4 billion tax break they were recording a $4.8 billion net loss. A little simple math tells me that they went from $4.8 billion in the red to $6.6 billion in the black.

Why are we already assigning blame to BP (other than that they operated the well)? BP didn't design the well, construct it, or even own it. What about Transocean and Halliburton? The government chose BP as an easy target because of its ongoing war with oil companies.

The oil never really made it to Mobile, but the efforts have been spread across Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana. It is pretty much cleaned up.

The media definitely over-sensationalized the spill. Most people down here will tell you that if the media hadn't run out of control on the story, the economy would not taken nearly the hit that it did. Case in point - practically the entire recovery effort now is being spent as a PR campaign to convince people that the beaches and seafood are clean. There was not nearly the ecological damage that the media had hope for, I mean, predicted.

Also, there is no way that BP is profiting from the spill. Aside from the out of pocket cleanup expenses, which includes the fact that the government has assigned them blame without granting them the right to a jury trial, BP has taken a major PR hit that has resulted in large losses in revenue.

The major problem with your argument is that you make assumptions that have yet to be proven, i.e., that BP could have done anything to prevent the blowout. Accidents sometimes happen on a grand scale, and there is nothing that can be done about them. I don't know whether BP was without fault, negligent, grossly negligent, or willfully negligent, but assuming they are liable without knowing the facts and denying them the right to deduct their losses are improper, and from a government perspective, unconstitutional.

Star_Cards
04-25-2011, 11:18 AM
Not that we need a pity party for BP, but it seems like they can deduct their expenses for the clean up as losses on their taxes just like any other company can deduct losses.

sanfran22
04-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Why are we already assigning blame to BP (other than that they operated the well)? BP didn't design the well, construct it, or even own it. What about Transocean and Halliburton? The government chose BP as an easy target because of its ongoing war with oil companies.

The oil never really made it to Mobile, but the efforts have been spread across Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana. It is pretty much cleaned up.

The media definitely over-sensationalized the spill. Most people down here will tell you that if the media hadn't run out of control on the story, the economy would not taken nearly the hit that it did. Case in point - practically the entire recovery effort now is being spent as a PR campaign to convince people that the beaches and seafood are clean. There was not nearly the ecological damage that the media had hope for, I mean, predicted.

Also, there is no way that BP is profiting from the spill. Aside from the out of pocket cleanup expenses, which includes the fact that the government has assigned them blame without granting them the right to a jury trial, BP has taken a major PR hit that has resulted in large losses in revenue.

The major problem with your argument is that you make assumptions that have yet to be proven, i.e., that BP could have done anything to prevent the blowout. Accidents sometimes happen on a grand scale, and there is nothing that can be done about them. I don't know whether BP was without fault, negligent, grossly negligent, or willfully negligent, but assuming they are liable without knowing the facts and denying them the right to deduct their losses are improper, and from a government perspective, unconstitutional.
Well said:party0053:. One other question. I wonder what would have happened if they were not forced to drill so far out by those that shall not be named....I believe BP has some fault, but like was just stated, there is a ton of blame to go around. You are only seeing 1 entity villified. But, I know, there is no bias in the media:whistle:.

duane1969
04-25-2011, 03:58 PM
I'm curious. Have you ever taken a business course? You really can't be serious. If this is "how you think" in general, no wonder why we disagree on so many issues.:rolleyes:

Better than that. I was a manager for a petroeum marketing company from 2000 to 2006. I understand how business works and how the petroleum business works. I know it is an allowed deduction. I just don't see carelessness and ineptitude in conducting your business as a legit reason for a tax deduction.